Chennai Court January 2005 Judgments
i. Salam Khan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, Rep. by Its Chairman and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad241; (2005)1MLJ646
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25.09.2000. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned order. The dispute in this case relates to a wakf. 2. In our opinion, all matters pertaining to Wakfs should be filed in the first instance before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 and should not be entertained by this Court straight away under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. It may be mentioned that the Wakf Act, 1995 is a recent parliamentary statute which has constituted a special Tribunal for deciding disputes relating to Wakfs. The obvious purpose of constituting such a Tribunal was that a lot of petitions relating to Wakfs were being filed in the Courts in India and they were occupying a lot of time of all the Courts in the country, which resulted in increase in pendency of cases in the Courts. Hence, a special Tr...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thamil Arasan, President of Chennai Vyasarpadi Nadar Progressive As ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC399; (2005)2MLJ102
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the District Registrar of Societies, Chennai Central. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned order and we are of the opinion that it was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. It appears that an election for the office bearers of the society known as Chennai Vyasarpadi Nadar Progressive Association was held on 26.10.2003 and that election had been set aside by the District Registrar by the impugned order. 3. When Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent was asked as to under which provision the impugned order was passed, he has stated that the impugned order was passed under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. Section 36(1) of the said Act states that, 'the Registrar may, of his own motion or on the application of a majority of the members of the committee ...
Tag this Judgment!Salahudeen Babu Vs. P.T. Prabhakar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad243; 2005(1)CTC385; (2006)4MLJ22(NULL)
Markandey Katju, C.J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 3.1.2005. 2. The parties are referred in this judgment as per the array of parties in the writ petition. First and Second respondents are the writ petitioners and the appellant is the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. 3. The writ petitioners Mr.P.T.Prabhakar and Mrs.Nalini Prabhakar filed a writ petition for a mandamus directing the Member Secretary, CMDA, Chennai and the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai to proceed against the appellant Mr.Salahudeen Babu and take immediate action by way of demolition of the construction pursuant to the notice dated 4.11.2004 issued by the Member Secretary, CMDA, Chennai under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamilnadu Town & Country Planning Act, 1971 and also pursuant to the notice issued by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai under Section 256 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Varadarajan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeal), Madras (A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC538; (2005)IILLJ6Mad
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These two writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 25.1.2001 and also the order of the learned single Judge dated 5.3.2001 rejecting the restoration application.2. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2001 and find no infirmity in the same.3. The appellant (writ petitioner) was working as a salesman in a ration shop run by the second respondent. He was chargesheeted for various misconducts including misappropriation of money, in respect of which a domestic enquiry was conducted in which he was given an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter he was found guilty of the charges and his service was terminated. He filed an appeal before the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, but his appeal was dismissed by order dated 30.6.1993. Aggrieved by this order he filed a writ petition before the learned single Judge, who dismissed it by order dated 25.1.2001 and the rest...
Tag this Judgment!C. Shanmugam Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Rep. by Its Managing Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC555; (2005)IILLJ625Mad; (2005)2MLJ109
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 11.3.2004 passed by the learned single judge.2. The writ-petitioner/appellant was working as Man Mazdoor is Salem Housing Unit of the respondent-Board. He was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of money and, after enquiry, he was found guilty. The finding of guilt is a finding of fact and we cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. Admittedly, the appellant was given an opportunity of hearing in the enquiry and hence, the principles of natural justice have been complied with.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the person who was more guilty, viz., the Revenue Inspector has been let off with a minor punishment whereas the appellant suffered the punishment of dismissal from service. Learned counsel submitted that though this point was urged before the learned single Judge, there is no discussion of the same in the impugned order and, therefore, this point may now be consid...
Tag this Judgment!The Management, Dharmapuri District Co-operative Spinning Mills Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC485; [2005(105)FLR138]; (2005)IILLJ98Mad
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.6.2003.2. We have carefully perused the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the appellant.3. The writ-petitioner/second respondent herein was removed from service. The charge leveled against the workman was that he went on a hunger-strike on account of his grievance that he was denied the increment to which he was legitimately entitled to. The order of removal from service was challenged before the labour Court. The labour Court set aside the order of removal holding that the punishment was disproportionate to the nature of delinquency and directed the reinstatement without backwages. The award of the labour Court was challenged by the Management by filing the writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge, upholding the order of the labour Court. We agree with the learned single Judge that such an act of the workman cannot justify the pun...
Tag this Judgment!Murugan V. Vs. M.D.A.H.S.G-57, Vedasandur Circle Co-operative Housing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ490Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the Award of the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli made in I.D.No. 378 of 1995 dated February 26, 1997 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and back wages and other consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the writ petition are that the petitioner herein was employed as Secretary in the first respondent Society and on a charge of misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 14,000, an enquiry was held and the charges were held proved and ultimately he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the petitioner raised I.D. No. 212 of 1994 before the Labour Court, Madurai which was transferred to the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli and re-numbered as I.D. No. 378 of 1995 and the same was dismissed on February 26, 1997, challenging which the present writ petition has been filed.3. At the outset, it must be state...
Tag this Judgment!Lvr Dong-in-stone Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)4SOT597(Chennai)
Both the appeals of the assessee relate to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. Both the appeals of the assessee arises out of the order of the CIT(A) (CIT(A)) and involves common issues for consideration.Therefore, we heard the same together and disposing of the same by this common order.Mr. S. Sridhar, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the ssessee has received interest income and it was included in the profit of the business for the purpose of computing eligible profit under section 80HHC. The learned counsel further submitted that the assessing officer excluded 90% of the gross interest while computing the eligible profit. According to the learned counsel, the assessee has also paid interest to the bank. Therefore, the interest paid by the assessee has to be deducted from the interest received. According to the learned counsel, the net interest will be a negative figure, therefore, there is no question of exclusion of any interest while computing the deductio...
Tag this Judgment!P. Virabhagu Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Secretary to Gov ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC429; (2005)1MLJ472
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J. 1. Challenging the order of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 376 of 2000 dated 12.4.2000 and the Memorandum No. Estt.2(42)/97 of the third respondent, dated 20/22.9.1999, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the same and for a direction to the second and third respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Groundman in the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Examination and Research, Pondicherry against the vacancy for which the petitioner was selected in the interview held on 18.2.1999. 2. The petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange, Pondicherry to the post of Ground man in the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Examination and Research (hereinafter referred to as JIPMER) and thereupon the Administrative officer under the second respondent sent a call letter to the petitioner in Memorandum No. Estt.2(42)/97 dated 1.2.1999 asking the petitioner to appear for...
Tag this Judgment!M. Elangovan and ors. Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ653Mad; (2005)1MLJ686
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The writ appeal is preferred g inst the judgment of learned Judge in W.P.No. 10628 of 1988 dated 30.9.1997. The writ petitioners are the appellants herein and the point that rises in the appeal is whether the appellants who are employees in the statutory canteen run by the first respondent in the appeal are employees of the first respondent for all purposes.2. The appellants numbering 103 persons have filed the writ petition for writ of declaration declaring that the appellants are the workmen of the respondents 1 and 2 and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise their services and absorb them and also for the issue of further and other orders. 3. The case of the appellants, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the first respondent, Madras Refineries Limited, is factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948, and in the said factory, more than 2000 workmen are employed on three shift basis and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »