Chennai Court August 2004 Judgments
Sri Pillappa, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ247
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. The present Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the notification issued by the second respondent under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Scheme, Act (Act 31/1978) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act). The issue relates to the property belonging to the petitioner in Survey No. 45/2B to an extent of 0.13.0.hectares, Survey No. 49 to an extent of 0.81.0 hectares and Survey No. 50/1A to an extent of 0.23.0 hectares in village Nandimangalam. A notice under Section 4(2) of the Act dated 20.12.2000 was issued by the 3rd respondent in the name of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the petitioner No. 1. In the said notice it was indicated that the lands were required for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi-dravidars in the village. As per the notice, the petitioner No. 1 was required to attend the enquiry on 8.1.2001. The petitioner No. 1 filed a detailed written objection dated 2.1.2001 wherein it ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Varadharajan Vs. A. Krishnankutty Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC327; (2004)4MLJ370
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These matters relate to retail vending of I.M.F.L. (Indian Made Foreign Liquor) in the State of Tamil Nadu. Block Period licenses introduced by G.O. Ms. Nos. 113, 115 and 120, dated 22.6.2001 had been the source of litigation since 2001. Firstly, it was the increase of shops from 6000 to 7000, which was upheld by judgment dated 21.12.2001 in R.Selvaraj v. Government of T.N. etc. and Others., 2002 WLR 586 and nextly it was when the Block Period system was sought to be given a go-by by issuance of G.O. Nos. 128, 129 and 130, dated 8.7.2002, whereby the number of shops were further increased and the recategorisation was made for levy of privilege fee along with other changes including the introduction of lot system by cancelling the Block Period licenses, which was the subject matter of litigation in The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Etc. And Another v. K. Vinayakamoorthy and others, 2002 (3) CTC 257 : 2002 (3) L.W. 317. All changes were upheld in ...
Tag this Judgment!B and C Mills Staff Union (Regd. No. 2399), Rep. by Its General Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC433; (2004)IIILLJ964Mad; (2004)4MLJ309
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to recover the amounts due to the third respondent/Society from the fourth respondent/Management as per the Notice, dated 25.6.2003 and the subsequent deductions and consequently refund the interest to the workers/members as per the Resolution of the Board of Directors, dated 15.2.2001 as re-stated by the Resolution of the General Body of the third respondent/Society on 20.5.2002 along with the surplus amount with the third respondent Society and pass such other orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper, award costs and thus render justice.2. The contents of the affidavit are as follows:(i) The petitioners, three in number, are filing the writ petition seeking for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to recover the amounts due to the third respondent/society from the fourth respondent/Management as per the notice dated 25.6.2003 read with letter dated 10.11.2003. B&...
Tag this Judgment!Muthamilselvan and ors. Vs. A. Manickam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC650; (2004)4MLJ131
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.4.2004 rendered in O.S.No. 144 of 2003 by the Court of District Munsif, Melur.2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed by the defendants in the suit, it comes to be known that the respondents herein have filed the suit in O.S.No. 144 of 2003 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Melur for declaration of their right to enjoy the benefits of the honour in the temple of Sri Periyapanaiyur Ayyanar, Attapatti by rotation and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs. It further comes to be seen that during the course of trial, the defendants have filed a petition in I.A.No. 426 of 2004 unter Order 14, Rule 5 and Section 151, C.P.C. praying to frame an additional issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tri...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Susai Kalyanamandapam Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-2004
Reported in: [2004]271ITR138(Mad)
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is under challenge.2. Learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department, Mr. K. Subra-maniam, submits that there is a legal fiction introduced in Explanation 1 to section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that concealment, ipso facto, will attract penalty.3. We are not able to accede to this contention for the reason that the Explanation 1 contains two sub-clauses (A) and (B) which reads as under :'Explanation 1 to section 271(1): Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act,- (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner, to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ260
P.K. Misra, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India, represented by the Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-600 003 and the Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Madurai, against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.1.2001 in O.A. No. 807 of 1999, giving direction to the present petitioners to offer suitable employment to the present respondents 2 and 3.2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are required to be noticed in some detail. The present Respondents 2 and 3 were selected for training as Apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 and under letter dated 23.4.1991, they were directed to undergo Shed Floor Training in the open line establishment workshops for a period of 3 years. In the said letter, it has been stipulated that even on completion of training period, there was no guarantee for employment. The respondents 2 and 3 had received some stipend during the said period and th...
Tag this Judgment!T.T. Saravanan, Minor, Rep. by His Father and Natural Guardian, Dr. G. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC704; (2004)4MLJ283
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The writ petitioners pray that grandchildren of freedom fighters be given a seat in MBBS course under special category. Two of petitioners are the freedom fighters themselves and the great grand fathers of the candidates. 2. The prospectus for this year in so far as this clause is concerned reads as follows:'2004-2005'2004-200515. Seats reserved for special categories in Government Colleges Seats earmarked for the special categories will be allotted following the Horizontal Reservation.SPECIAL CATEGORIES(i) Seats reserved for children of freedom fighters No. of seats reserved in M.B.B.S - 3A. The Candidates while applying under the Special Category mentioned above should furnish the following copies of documents along with the application.a. Assistance Certificates/Freedom Fighter Pension Orders issued by the Central/State Government to the freedom fighter.(OR)Jail Extract duly recommended by the District Committee for the Freedom Fighters.b. Particulars of t...
Tag this Judgment!Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. (Chennai Division No. I) Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC757
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. The above appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation questioning the quantum fixed by the tribunal.2. In the present case, the tribunal without applying its mind accepted the Doctor's Certificate, who gave the disability certificate, which is marked as Ex.P7 stating that the claimant has sustained 25% of permanent disability. Such certificate is given by P.W.2 after three years from the date of accident. The claimant sustained only simple injury namely scratches on the body. The claimant was not even admitted in the hospital. He took treatment only as an out-patient from 10.12.1995 to 15.12.1995. We are unable to understand as to how the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,500 as if the claimant has sustained certain disability and thereby he lost his capacity to earn his income.3. The tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000 towards pain and suffering, which is also on the higher side, taking into consideration of the nature of injury. The tribunal also ...
Tag this Judgment!Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. U. Duraikannau
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: II(2005)ACC716
ORDER1. The above appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation questioning the quantum fixed by the Tribunal.2. In the present case, the Tribunal without applying its mind accepted the Doctor's certificate, who gave the disability certificate, which is marked as Ex. P7 stating that the claimant has sustained 25% of permanent disability. Such certificate is given by P.W. 2 after three years from the date of accident. The claimant sustained only simple injury namely scratches on the body. The claimant was not even admitted in the hospital. He took treatment only as an out-patient from 10.12.1995 to 15.12.1995. We are unable to understand as to how the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,500/- as if the claimant has sustained certain disability and thereby he lost his capacity to earn his income.3. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is also on the higher side, taking into consideration of the nature of injury. The Tribunal also wrongly awarde...
Tag this Judgment!All India Medical and Engineering Colleges Association (Reg. No. 128/2 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2004)4MLJ1
P.K. Misra, J.1. These two sets of appeals have been directed against the common order dated 13.7.2004 passed by the Hon'ble single Judge in W.P.Nos.16034,16068,16095,16444 to 16447, 16659 to 16662 and 17383 of 2004 and the connected miscellaneous petitions. W.A.No.2856 of 2004 has been filed by the Permanent Committee for the conduct of Common Entrance Test and the Government of Tamil Nadu and the other three appeals have been filed by All India Medical and Engineering Colleges Association, Forum of Tamil Nadu Minority Self Financing Engineering Colleges and the Consortium of Professional Arts & Science Colleges in Tamil Nadu respectively.2. The contesting respondent in the appeal filed by the State Government and the Permanent Committee is the appellant in the connected W.A.No.3053 of 2004, wherein the State and the Permanent Committee are the contesting respondents. 3. We have heard the learned Advocate General on behalf of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Permanent Committee an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »