Chennai Court March 2005 Judgments
S.N. Vijayakumar Vs. S.R. Velusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC445
ORDERT.V. Masilamani, J.1. The revision petitioner is the defendant who failed before the trial Court in I.A.No.292 of 1999 to obtain an order to send the disputed document to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures and to submit a report. He has come forward with this petition challenging the legality of the said order in the Interlocutory Application dated 07.12.2003.2. Heard both sides. The only point for consideration is whether the trial Court has to exercise its power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the signature in the disputed document with that of the signatures in the admitted documents before ever the document is sent to the hand writing expert for comparison.3. The provision under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:'73.Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved:-In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or ma...
Tag this Judgment!A. Joseph Louis Vs. the District Welfare Fund Committee, Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC321; (2005)2MLJ506
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by one A. Joseph Louis against District Welfare Fund Committee represented by its President-District Collector, Trichy-1, N. Balasubramanian, Trichy-1 and State of Tamil Nadu represented by Commissioner, Land Administration, Chennai for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent-District Welfare Fund Committee to accept the highest Tender of Rs. 2,07,999/- per month made by him (petitioner) in respect of lease of 'Thiyagaraja Bagavathar Mandram' Cinema Theatre, Kalaiarangam, Trichy-1.2. First, the Writ Petition came before the First Bench consisting of Hon'ble The Chief Justice and D. Murugesan, J. The Division Bench based on the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit and after finding a prima facie opinion that the first respondent-Committee did appear to be performing public functions, expressed their inability to follow the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P. Nos. 1043 and 1896/2002 and 23534 an...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaranarayanan M. Vs. State Bank of India (Rep. by Its M.D. (Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: (2005)IILLJ992Mad
ORDERD. Murugesn, J.1. The petitioner joined as cashier in the Ramanathapuram Branch of State Bank of India in the year 1961. After various promotions, he was lastly promoted as Chief Manager during February, 1998 while he was working in Madurai Main Branch. He was transferred to Tuticonn Branch where he worked from June 10, 1994 to June 15, 1996. Thereafter, he was transferred to the main branch of State Bank of India at Chennai during February, 1998. It appears that on February 9, 1998, while the petitioner was on transfer to Chennai, a letter was issued by the Assistant General Manager, Madurai levelling certain allegations and thereby called the petitioner to submit his explanation. An explanation, dated February 20, 1998, was submitted denying the allegations. The petitioner was suspended on March 12, 1998, but no further action was taken.2. On the eve of the retirement of the petitioner, he was issued with the chargesheets, dated February 3, 1999, and February 11, 1999, containin...
Tag this Judgment!institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. K. Bhagvatheeswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2005
Reported in: [2005]145TAXMAN405(Mad)
Markandey Katju, CL These writ appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 13-7-1998 passed in W.P. Nos. 5925 and 5926 of 1989.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The petitioner in both the writ petitions (1st respondent in both the writ appeals herein) is a practising Chartered Accountant and was a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. The petitioner alleged in his affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition No. 5925 of 1989 that he was a partner of M/s. Shri & Co., a reputed Chartered Accountant firm which was stated in Madras in 1938. It is alleged that the said firm had wide range of clientele belonging to both public and private sectors and also of individuals, firms, companies and trusts. It was also functioning as Tax Consultants and Tax Representatives. The profession of Chartered Accountants is governed by the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). ...
Tag this Judgment!Max Worth Homes Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. V. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC258; (2005)2MLJ608
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.12.2004 made in E.P. No. 4 of 2004 in O.P. No. 13 of 2003 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter called as the Commission), at Chennai. 2. The petitioner herein is the opposite party in the complaint preferred by the respondent herein. The respondent has preferred a complaint for deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner. According to the respondent, even though he has parted with the amount for construction of the house in question long bank, the petitioner has not completed the construction and there was undue delay, which resulted in filing the complaint before the Commission. 3. The Commission by order dated 29.3.2004 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,93,416/- towards compensation, which includes the payment made by the respondent/complainant for construction of the house with with interest and damages. 4. Apart from the said amount a sum of R...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank, rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Director Vs. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ59Mad; (2005)2MLJ439
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 22.04.2004.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. The facts in detail are given in the judgment of the learned single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.4. The writ petition was filed by the respondent praying for quashing of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras dated 29.3.1996. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge, and hence this writ appeal.5. The short controversy in this case is whether the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension of an employee of the bank should be paid by taking into account the increments which fell due during the period of suspension.6. The service conditions of the members of respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) are governed by bank awards as modified by the various Bipartite settlements. Paragraph-557 of Sastry Award reads: - ' 1. For the first three months one-...
Tag this Judgment!Ramani U. Krishnan Vs. Dr. Ammini Praveen Joshua @ Veena
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad423; 2005(2)CTC262; (2005)2MLJ364
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The above original side appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.11.1999 made in Application No. 3066 of 1999 in O.P. No. 623 of 1997, in and by which, the learned Judge dismissed the said application filed for revocation of the probate granted in favour of the respondent herein in O.P. No. 623 of 1997 dated 02.09.1997.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.3. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the appeal are stated hereunder:The applicant, who is a third party to the proceedings in O.P. No. 623 of 1997 has filed Application No. 3066 of 1999 under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 and Order XXV Rule 62 of the Original Side Rules. The respondent herein filed the said O.P. No. 623 of 1997, for probate of the Will said to have been executed by late Dr. O. Francis on 26 .06.1997. The testator of the Will...
Tag this Judgment!S. Janakiraman Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC243
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 10.11.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. The prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to remove the obstruction in a passage on a street in Chennai said to have been caused by the 5th respondent Muthuraj.3. In our opinion, the proper remedy in such cases for the petitioner/appellant is to file an injunction suit and not to file a writ petition. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy....
Tag this Judgment!Prithvi Trust Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Power of Attorney Mr. R. Perum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC145; (2005)2MLJ460
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent connected with the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands measuring 4.54 Acres in Survey Nos. 588/1 and 588/2 in Thirumullaivoyal Village, Saidapet Taluk which now forms part of Ambattur Taluk, which has remained unutilized after acquisition by notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in the Fort St. George Gazette Part-II Section I dated 17.7.1963, to quash the same and to direct the first respondent to deliver the lands to the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act.2.1. According to the petitioner, their lands measuring 4.54 acres in Survey Nos. 588/1 and 588/2 in Thirumullaivoyal Village, Saidapet Taluk, which now forms part of Ambattur Taluk, were acquired by the respondents pursuant to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Itc Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-2005
Reported in: 2005(185)ELT114(Mad); (2005)2MLJ158
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This is a reference application on behalf of the revenue under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by which the following questions have been sought to be referred to us for our opinion.'1. Is the Hon'ble Tribunal right in holding that the payment of duty vide PLA No. 580 dated 27.10.92 has not been paid voluntarily?2. Can the letter OC. No. 1124/97 dated 02.09.92 of the Superintendent of Central Excise asking the assesses to reverse an amount of Rs.5,98,000/- being irregular Modvat credit availed, and other correspondences in continuation, be considered to have raised a dispute since it is not a SCN issued under Section 11A? Can the Action of the assessee debiting the said amount vide PLA No. 580 dated 27.10.92 be considered payment under protest since no letter filed on that date giving any grounds for payment under protest and subsequently also filed no representation for payment made under protest as per sub-rule 5 of Rule 233B?3.Can the let...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »