Chennai Court January 2005 Judgments
Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited, Jawaharlal Nehru Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad236; 2005(2)ARBLR622(Madras); III(2005)BC247; 2005(1)CTC401
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Limited, who suffered an award in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1998 and the interim award in Application No. 2 of 1998 in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1998 has preferred this Original Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.2. The State Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Information has issued G.O.Ms. No. 162 dated 10.6.1992 for construction of film city at Taramani, Chennai, thereby appointed the petitioner herein as Consultant and Contractor. The petitioner has issued work order on 23.6.1992 to the first respondent, which has commenced the work after furnishing bank guarantee on 15.7.1992. During the course of execution of work, the second respondent/Government included additional works by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 16 and 17 dated 27.1.1994. There are 61 agreements entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent in respect of works covered in the above said three Government O...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kumar and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad278; (2005)1MLJ601
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The above Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent made in Letter No. 5000/CDC/2000, dated --.10.2000 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to recognize the degree of the 4th respondent for all purposes including appointments, promotions, higher studies and for doing Ph.D. etc. with all consequential benefits.2. Petitioners, numbering 68, are all B.E/B.Tech. graduates and are all working as Lecturers in various colleges and with permission from their respective college they joined the M.S. Degree Course (Computer Science, Electronics Control etc., systems and Information, Software System and Technological Operations) by distance education system of the BITS, Pilani (Rajasthan) and have completed the course also and when it came to the matter of recognition, the Director of Technical Education, by the impugned order, has inform...
Tag this Judgment!Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-2005
Reported in: [2005]146TAXMAN25(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.Pursuant to the directions of this court in T. C. P. No. 766 of 1997 dated 25-6-1998, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for consideration :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35C of the Income Tax Act, in respect of the entirety of the expenditure incurred by way of motor vehicle maintenance of the cane department, transport of fertilisers and travel expenses of the cane department ?'1. The assessment year involved is 1983-84. The assessee is a public limited company and its main business is the manufacture of sugar. The assessee claimed, in its assessment proceedings, weighted deduction on certain expenses under section 35C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but the assessing officer disallowed the following expenses :Rs.1. 50 per c...
Tag this Judgment!Manakadu Elainger Nala Sports, Narpani Mandram, Rep. by Its President, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad214; 2005(1)CTC245
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 8.11.2004.2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The appellant is a Club where persons play Carrom and Chess, which is affiliated to Nehru Yuva Kendra, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India and it is a registered Society.4. The allegation in the petition was that the police personnel are interfering with the functioning of the Club and harassing the persons who go there as well as the organisers.5. We asked the learned Additional Government Pleader as to why the police is interfering with the functioning of the Club. Today, learned Additional Government Pleader informed us that the appellant is charging some amount of money from the persons who go to play Carrom and Chess in the Club.6. This is a free and democratic country. All citizens are free to do whatever they like unless prohibited by law. Hence unless the respondents show whic...
Tag this Judgment!J.V. Gokal and Co., a Regd. Partnership Firm, Rep. by Its Partner Shri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTLJ29(Mad); (2005)1MLJ483
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the interlocutory order dated 20.10.2004 in WPMP No. 36898 of 2004 in W.P. No. 30434 of 2004. With the consent of the parties we are disposing off the writ appeal as well as the writ petition.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The facts of the case are that a tender notice was advertised in the newspaper inviting bids from the manufacturers of Ductile Iron pipes. The conditions of the tender notice including eligibility criteria have been mentioned in the aforesaid tender notice dated 22.9.2004.4. The appellant challenged this tender notice on the ground that it would create a monopoly as only two companies in India are fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in the tender notice.5. Admittedly the appellant is not a manufacturer, but is the marketing agent of a Hongkong firm which in turn is the marketing agent of a manufacturer in China. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of the Supr...
Tag this Judgment!Service Bar Association Rep. by Its President L. Chandrakumar Vs. Unio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC321; (2005)1MLJ402
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the Service Bar Association which is an Association of lawyers practising before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act.2. The prayer in this petition is a general prayer directing the respondents to withdraw all the cases pending in the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and to transfer them to this Court for decision by the High Court.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General.4. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was constituted under Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 on 12.12.1988 and we are informed that as on date about 34,000 cases are pending there.5. We are informed that presently there is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal and the State Government has sent a proposal to the Central Government for abolition of the Tribunal and the matter is pending with the Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanalakshmi and ors. Vs. P. Mohan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC254
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. By consent, the main revision itself is taken up. This revision is against the and order dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein, to implead themselves in the suit filed by the first respondent for partition of his share of the property in O. S. No. 82 of 2004.2. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the properties from the second, third, fourth and sixth respondents by two registered sale deeds dated 18.6.1999 and 21.6.1999 and they are the bonafide purchasers for the value and entitled for alienors' share in equity and therefore they are the necessary parties for effective adjudication of the dispute in O. S. No. 82 of 2004. The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur came to the conclusion that since the sales in favour of the petitioners were covered by the doctrine of lis pendens and since they can only have whether rights of their transferors had, it is not necessary to deal with their rights separately and dismissed the appli...
Tag this Judgment!N.A. Thangavelu Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ430
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 01.04.2004.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The facts of the case are that one M.K. Velu, respondent No. 4 in this appeal, was a permit holder in respect of a stage carriage plying on the route Vellore to Sathanur Dam (via) Kannamangalam, Polur, Thiruvannamalai and Thandrampattu for the portions lying in Thiruvannamalai District since 1972. On 12.01.2000 M.K. Velu and the appellant submitted a joint application under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for transfer of the permit in the name of the transferee viz., N.A. Thangavelu, the appellant herein. Since that application had not been disposed off, a writ petition was filed in this Court on which an order dated 01.03.2000 was passed directing the Regional Transport Authority to decide that application. In the meantime a suit has been filed by one Revathi, daughter of M.K. Velu against M.K. Velu and t...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector Vs. N. Murugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ405
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 5.8.2003. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The facts of the case are that on 10.7.2002, the Collector invited applications for grant of privilege of retail vending of Indian Made Foreign Liquor under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989. The respondent/writ petitioner applied under Rule 13(1) on 18.7.2002 and remitted 50% of the privilege amount. It is alleged that the dates for drawal of lots were fixed on 22.7.2002 and 23.7.2002, but the draw was not held on the said dates. The writ petitioner intimated to the authorities on 23.7.2002 and subsequently also on 29.7.2002 that he was withdrawing the application. However, the order dated 4.9.2002 was passed forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioner.3. The writ petition was filed, which has been allowed by the learned single Judge. Hence, this appeal.4. Rule 13(2) of the Rules states,'when the number of eligible ap...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner(Ct) Vs. Tvl. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ525; [2005]142STC399(Mad)
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. These writ petitions are posted today for admission and I heard the learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the petitioner in all the writ petitions.2. The petitioner has come forward with W.P. No. 37702 of 2004 praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to the order dated 12.11.2001 made in CTSA No. 277 of 2000 and quash the same as illegal.3. W.P. No. 37707 of 2004 has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to the order dated 10-12-2003 made in STA No. 353 of 2001 and quash the same as illegal.4. W.P. No. 37708 of 2004 has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to the order dated 06-01-2003 made in CTA No. 115 of 1997 and quash the same as illegal.5. The issues involved in all the three writ petitions are almost similar, hence, they are d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »