Chennai Court February 2005 Judgments
Arulraj, Vs. Jabesthial
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC753
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Second Appeal was directed against the decree and judgment dated 19.04.1994 of Sub Court, Dharmapuri in A.S.7 of 1993, by confirming the decree passed by the trial court (District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri) on 04.01.1993 in its O.S.722 of 1990.2. During the course of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed:(1) Whether the Courts below erred in law in holding that the plaintiff / respondent has complied with the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ?(2) Whether the Courts below erred in law in granting a decree of specific performance for sale especially when serious allegation of frud has been made by the respondent with regard to the execution of Ex.A-1 dated 27.08.1987 ?3. This is a suit for specific performance. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant, who himself is the brother of plaintiff's husband. There was an agreement between the parties on 27.08.1987 under Ex.A-1, ...
Tag this Judgment!industrial Relations Manager, Madurai Coats Limited and ors. Vs. Jayar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC211; (2005)IILLJ617Mad; (2005)4MLJ284
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The Management has filed this revision against the order passed in I.A.No. 865 of 2004 in O.S.No. 116 of 2003. The suit was filed by the first respondent for a declaration that the order of demotion passed by the petitioners on 04.02.2002 is not valid and a direction to the petitioners to restore him in the same post as before. The petitioners filed their written statement and raised a plea inter alia that the matter related to an industrial dispute and must be decided before the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, the petitioners filed I.A.No. 865 of 2004 for raising a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. The trial Court elaborately considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the preliminary Issue with regard to jurisdiction must be answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. Against that this revision is filed.2. The learned counsel for the pe...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ponnusamy Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and the Managemen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ24Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent relating to his common order dated 14.2.1995 in C.P.Nos.6 of 1992 and 252 of 1992, quash the same in so far as it denied the benefits of reinstatement to the petitioner as a Shift-in-Charge (or Assistant Production Chemist) and the relief prayed for by the petitioner.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the first Petition referred to above, the petitioner would submit that he joined the services of the second respondent company on 4.4.1978; that he also performed the duties of the shift in charge and was the sole shift in charge of the boiler house though he was designated as Apprentice Trainee; that the period of his training was extended periodically and he was required to obtain a first class Boiler Competency Certificate during the period of training, which, according to the Madras Boiler Attendant Rules could be obtained only after a min...
Tag this Judgment!The President, Malikdhinar English Medium School and United India Insu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2006ACJ1711; 2005(2)CTC352; (2005)1MLJ676
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.1998 made in MCOP No.84 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) at Nagercoil.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.3. The respondents are the parents of the deceased, a small girl by the name of Haseena Banu, aged about 31/2 years at the time of the accident. The deceased girl was studying in the 1st Appellant's English Medium School. On 28.08.1996, the Van, belong to the 1st appellant School, brought the children back to their homes and the deceased girl alighted from the van to reach her home and the driver of the vehicle in question started the bus suddenly without caring for the safety of the child, and in t hat process the vehicle ran over the child and the girl died on the spot itself. The parents claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- before the Tribunal and the driver and the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance C...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah S/O. Ponnusamy Nadar Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4566
S. Ashok Kumar, J.The appellant, the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 320 of 2001 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. II), Thoothukudy, has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 15.04.2002, convicting him under Sections 302 and 326 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC and also ordering the sentences to run concurrently.2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows.:(a) The deceased Vellaiammal is the wife of one Subramanian (since dead). The accused is none other than the own brother of the said Subramanian. From 1996 onwards, there were frequent quarrels between the said Subramanian and his brother, the accused, over the sharing of the properties and there were cases and counter cases in the criminal court pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur.(b) On 23.04.1998, the deceased Vellaiamm...
Tag this Judgment!Ranga Rao Lottery Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: [2006]287ITR542(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In all these cases, the Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, has stated a case and referred the following common questions of law for consideration by this Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant trust is a discretionary trust and hence maximum marginal rate of tax has to be applied ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that rectification deed effected by the authority would not relate back and could not cure the alleged defect in the trust deed ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to follow the general principle of law viz., when the shares are not specified in the deed, the beneficiaries take the shares in equal proportion ?4. Whether the Tribunal is further right in law in distinguishing the decisions relied in support of the above proposition ?...
Tag this Judgment!Ranga Rao Lottery Agencies Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Mad)431; [2006]155TAXMAN422(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.In all these cases, the Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, has stated a case and referred the following common questions of law for consideration by this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant trust is a discretionary trust and hence maximum marginal rate of tax has to be applied ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that rectification deed effected by the authority would not relate back and could not cure the alleged defect in the trust deed ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in refusing to follow the general principle of law viz., when the shares are not specified in the deed, the beneficiaries take the shares in equal proportion ?4. Whether the Tribunal is further right in law in distinguishing the decisions relied in support of the above proposition ?'2...
Tag this Judgment!Loyal Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit, Special Range-ii, Madurai
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)6SOT97(Chennai)
Both the appeals of the assessee and the revenue arise out of the same order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A) for the assessment year 1993-94. Therefore, we heard both the appeals together and disposing of the name by this common order.Let us first take assessee's Appeal in I.T.A. No. 2704 (Mds)/96. The first issue arises for consideration is regarding of disallowance of Rs. 20,983 on revaluation of tools. During the course of hearing, it was fairly conceded by both the representatives of the assessee and the revenue that the same issue came before this Tribunal for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 in the assessee's own case in I.T.A. No. 2636 (Mds)/94 & I.T.A. No. 220 (Mds)/96. This Tribunal after considering the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of CAIT v. Midland Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 493 (Ker) allowed the claim of the assessee. Since the facts are identical and similar to one which was decided by this Tribunal for t...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Represented by Its Member-s ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC573; (2005)1MLJ666
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 19.04.1993 in A.S. No. 213 of 1992 of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in confirming the decree and judgment passed on 18.12.1990 in O.S.2533 of 1988 by the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed:'When application to regularise unauthorised construction has been refused by an order dated 5-4-1988, and there was not even a further appeal to the Government, are the Courts below right in granting the prayer in the suit ?'3. The suit was for declaration that notice dated 21.02.1988 issued to one Padmanabhan, father of plaintiffs under section 56 of Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972 (Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971) as illegal and for permanent injunction not to demolish the suit building by virtue of the above said notice. The suit was decreed by both the courts below.4. It is n...
Tag this Judgment!Siva Thanu Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Executive Officer/Deputy Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-2005
Reported in: 2005(1)CTC735; (2005)2MLJ113
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J. 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants and they have sought for interim injunction. The suit was filed by the appellants for declaration and injunction that the respondents are not entitled to charge special fees from the devotees at Sri Devi Bagavathi Amman temple and for a permanent injunction. The respondents resisted the suit on the ground that the suit was not maintainable and that the fee system has been introduced only to facilitate old people, pregnant women and those who cannot stand in the queue for long and that it is not as if the entrance fee is collected from all the people standing in the general queue, who are free to have dharshan without paying any fee, and that a similar system prevails in other famous temples in the State of Tamil Nadu. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and therefore the second appeal has been filed and it has been admitted on 3.11.2004.2. Caveator took notice and today the in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »