Chennai Court February 2005 Judgments
People Health and Development Council, Represented by Its Secretary, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ44(2)
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. People Health and Development Council, represented by its Secretary S.M. Govindasamy, East Sottaiyampalayam, R.M. Puthur, Erode-5 has filed Writ Petition No. 5494 of 1998 for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 therein, namely, Forest and Environment Department, Housing and Urban Development Department, Pollution Control Board and Collector, Erode District respectively to close down Tannery Units of respondents 5 to 38. One M. Thangavelu of Ayagoundarapalayam, Gnanapathipalayam, Erode has filed Writ Petition No. 30153 of 2003 praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3, namely, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the District Collector, Erode and the District Environment-Welfare Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Erode-3 to take action against all the industries in and around Erode by closing the industries.2. The case of the People Health and Development Council, as set out in W.P.No. 5494/1998 is br...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation, Rep. by Its M.D. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ188Mad; (2005)1MLJ732
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated April 19, 2002.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment and also the record including the award of the Labour Court.3. The respondent was a driver in a bus of the appellant. When he was driving the bus there was an accident on November 28, 1985 and in that accident eight passengers including the van driver were killed and five were injured. A domestic enquiry was held in which the workman was given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter he was found guilty. He was given a second show cause notice and thereafter he was dismissed on September 13, 1988.4. He raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, which passed its award on July 1, 1994.5. The Labour Court in the relevant portion of its award stated:'Today an endorsement was made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that th...
Tag this Judgment!Alacrity Foundations (P.) Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit, Special Range Vii
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)7SOT317(Chennai)
Both the appeals of the assessee relate to assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. We heard both the appeals together -and disposing of the same by this common order.Let us first take I.T.A. No. 369 (Mad,)/98 for the assessment year 199495. The first issue arises for consideration is regarding disallowance of Rs. 11,87,763 paid towards salary and LTA to service engineers deputed to M/s. Alacrity Electronics Ltd. Mr. S. Renganathan, the learned representative for the assessee submitted that the service engineers were on the pay roll of the assessee-company who were recruited and appointed even before the Housing and the Electronics Division were transferred to the public limited company, namely, Alacrity Housing Ltd. and Alacrity Electronics Ltd. According to the learned representative, the assessee-company entered into manpower transfer agreement to depute experienced service engineers to Alacrity Electronics Ltd. During deputation period, M/s. Alacrity Electronics Ltd. would pay the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Amman Associates, Rep. by Its Managing Partner, S. Sundararajan Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC299; 2005(4)CTC399; (2006)3MLJ630
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Notification issued by the third respondent in Tender Notice dated 24.01.2005, to quash condition Nos. 5 and 8 and to direct the respondents to scrutinize all the tenders including the petitioner without insisting on these two conditions.2. The dispute lies in a narrow compass, namely, as to whether the two conditions, which are prescribed in the impugned tender notification as condition Nos. 5 and 8, are valid or not? The said conditions are as follows:- ' 5) Percentage Tender schedule will be issued to Registered contractors of this Department with appropriate class who are having their own Central Hot Mix Plant, Electronic Sensor Paver Finisher and Vibratory road roller conforming to MORT & H specifications, for which they should produce necessary documents for the ownership of plants with necessary sales tax clearance certificate etc. The evidence on the purc...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuswamy Vs. Siddhan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ433
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.2.1993 in A.S. No. 37 of 1992 decreeing the suit for damages granting a sum of Rs.1,000/- out of Rs.4,000/- claimed, by reversing the judgment dated 27.1.1992, passed by the learned District Munsif, Sankari dismissing the suit for damages in O.S. No. 1001 of 1988.2. While admitting the second appeal, the following question of law was framed:' Whether the judgment of the lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court is vitiated by its failure to apply the correct principles of law while considering the evidence in particular Ex.X.1.'3. This is a suit for malicious prosecution contending that defendant had prosecuted the complainant maliciously. True it is, there was a complaint preferred by defendant under Ex.A.3 informing that at 6.00 p.m. on 28.12.1983, Thaila Goundar, the father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the husband of 4th plaintiff along with the 4th plaintiff waylaid the defendant, snatched...
Tag this Judgment!Ford Credit Kotak Mahindra Limited Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad218; 2005(2)ARBLR468(Madras); 2005(2)CTC487; (2005)2MLJ137
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This revision is filed against the order of dismissal of the application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by the petitioner herein.2. The petitioner and the respondent entered into a loan agreement No. 21602081 dated 30-09-2001 thereby the respondent availed financial assistance from the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 4,93,000/- for purchase of Ford icon car. The respondent herein agreed to pay the said sum in 36 monthly installments commencing from 03-11-2001 to 03-10-2004. Clause 29 of the said agreement contemplates arbitration clause. The petitioner herein has issued loan recall notice on 12-01-2004 invoking clause 14 of the agreement as the respondent committed default in repaying the monthly installments and as on 29-02-2004, the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,68,062/-. The petitioner has also issued a telegram on 14-01-2004 to the respondent terminating the said loan agreement. The re...
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peetadhipathi Jagadguru Sri Sankarach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC657
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing.2. This writ petition has been filed by the Senior Pontiff of Sri Sankaracharya Swamigal Srimatam Samasthanam, represented by its Manager. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents-1 to 3 from interfering with the right of the petitioner to manage and administer its affairs, property, including the bank accounts, in various banks held in its name and in the names of the various endowments connected with it.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, after referring to the advent of Sree Adi Sankara and his preachings, it is stated that Adi Sankara was intimately associated with Kanchi and he established the Mutt for his residence during his last years and also nominated a young boy as his successor. Sree Sankara Mutt, established by Sree Adi Sankara at Kancheepuram, is an organisation built around Advaita Philosophy for its propagatio...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mallika Vs. M. Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC28; II(2005)DMC143
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This revision has been filed against the interlocutory order passed in HMOP.No. 30 of 2002, impleading the second respondent herein as correspondent.2. The first respondent herein filed the above OP for divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion. The petitioner herein filed her counter denying all the allegations. Subsequently, the first respondent filed this application in I.A.No. 31 of 2003 to implead the second respondent alleging that he is the paramour and that his wife (the petitioner herein) is living with him in adultery. According to the first respondent, the presence of the second respondent was necessary for effective adjudication for the main controversy.3. The petitioner herein resisted the said application on the ground that it is not necessary to implead the second respondent and the first respondent having failed to raise specific pleadings and having failed to set out specific acts of adultery and having failed to speak about t...
Tag this Judgment!Enercon (India) Ltd. Vs. J.T. Micheal Anjalo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC365
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution India for striking off the suit in O.S.No. 288 of 2004 from the file of the District Munsif, Valliyur, on the ground that the suit is not maintainable.2. The respondents 1 & 2 filed the above suit for an interim injunction, restraining the third respondent from alienating the suit property till the sale agreement is subsisting and restraining the petitioner from commissioning the wind energy electrical generator. Pending suit, respondents 1 and 2 prayed for an interim injunction, restraining the petitioner from commissioning the Wind Mill mentioned above. The Court below gave an interim injunction only with regard to operation of the wind generator. Against this the petitioner herein has filed this revision without filing an appeal which is there remedy against an order passed in an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. The learned counsel appearing for...
Tag this Judgment!Gran Rock Tiles (P) Ltd. Rep. by Executive Director Vs. the State of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ332
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. In exercise of powers under Rule 8-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the Government in G.O.(3D) No.32 Industries (MMB.1) Department dated 21.2.95, granted lease to the petitioner for a period of ten years to quarry black granite in S.No.77/3 over an extent of 0.43.5 hectares in Kilnatchipattu Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk. Pursuant to the grant the petitioner executed a lease deed on 5.4.95 and the petitioner also commenced the quarrying operation. In terms of Rule 11 of the Rules, the lease deeds are compulsorily registerable under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the lease deeds shall be got registered at the expenses of the lessees. Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 prescribes a period of four months for presenting the document for registration. It imposes a restriction on the registering authority to accept the document for registration only if it is presented within...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »