Chennai Court April 2005 Judgments
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Director General, All India R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC661; (2005)3MLJ310
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. The first respondent in W.P.Nos. 24444/2001 to 24451/2001 is the respective pensioner retired from Government of India service. The writ petitioner in W.P.No. 14913/2002 is the first respondent/pensioner in W.P.No. 24450/2001. The first respondent in W.P.No. 30047/2002 and W.P.No. 32527/2004 are again the respective pensioner retired from Government of India service. The writ petitioner in W.P.No. 45135/2002 is yet another pensioner retired from Government of India service. Each of the pensioner in W.P.Nos. 24444/2001 to 24451/2001 went before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by way of separate applications claiming payment of pension calculated on the minimum scale of pay of Rs. 14,300 - 18,300 - the revised pay scale introduced with effect from 01.1.1996. Incidentally, any individual order passed against them denying such pension benefit was sought to be quashed. All those applications were taken up on file by the Central Administrative ...
Tag this Judgment!Loordhu Ammal Eduational Trust Rep. by Its Seretary Vs. the University ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC513
ORDERMarkandey Katju, C.J.1. This is a review application for reviewing our judgment dated 20.4.2005.2. Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel and Mr. V. Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that since recognition had been granted to the writ petitioner institution it was automatically entitled to affil he Madras University in view of section 14(6)(a) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 which states:-'Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),--(a) grant affiliation to the institution where recognition has been granted.'3. Learned counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 4204 of 2004 etc. batch (Bharatidasan University v. Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan). We have carefully perused the said judgment. That case really was concerne question whether no objection certificate was required from the State Government before affiliation could be granted by the University. T...
Tag this Judgment!Bothra Traders, Rep. by Its Proprietor, Bhawarlal Bothra Vs. Bharat Pe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ198
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 25.02.2005 passed in W.P. No. 9368 of 2004. 2. The appellant has alleged that he was the highest bidder in a tender but the authorities have cancelled the tender process and ordered for fresh bids.3. It is well settled that even the highest bidder has no absolute indefeasible right to get a contract. There are various reasons for which the authorities may not accept the highest bid, vide S. Selvarani v. Commissioner, 2005 W.L.R. 30 (vide paragraphs 16 to 18) e.g. if they find the highest bid is inadequate or for some other good and valid reason, vide Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, (1925) 3 SCC 267 (vide paragraphs 11, 12 and 14). If the appellant is so advised, he can bid in the fresh tender. The learned Judge has already directed for refund of Earnest Money Deposit with interest at the rate of 15%. We see no infirmity in his order. There is no force in the appea...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janakiram Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(196)CTC551; [2005]275ITR403(Mad)
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the Tax Case reference and Appeals relate to same question to be considered by this Court, all the above matters are being disposed of by the following common order.2. T.C. No. 144/199 (Ref) relates to reference made by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench-B. By the Reference Application, wherein the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai is the applicant, and Messrs Janakiram Mills Ltd., Tenkasi Road, Rajapalayam is the respondent, the Revenue requested the Income Tax Tribunal to refer the following questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal dated 19-12-97 to this Court for its opinion. They are:'1). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee during the accounting year on the cost of carding system (Rs.31,22,679/-) was amount paid on current repairs and allowable under section 31 of the Income-tax Act? 2). Whether on the facts and in the ci...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Pondicherry Municipality Vs. Janardhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC593; (2005)2MLJ546
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1991 passed in A.S. No. 76 of 1991 by the First Additional District Judge, Pondicherry reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1991 made in O.S. No. 536 of 1981 by the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, the defendant has filed the above second appeal.2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:The plaintiff is a dealer in vegetables both wholesale and retail in big market, Pondicherry, and has been doing business since 1978 under the name and style of Dhanalakshmi Vilas. The plaintiff used to utilize the vacant site under the stair case on the Northern side of Grand Bazaar abutting the arch for keeping the vegetable baskets being unloaded from lorries in the early hours. With a view to harass the plaintiff, the defendant attempted to remove the baskets, which were kept for a short period, forcibly in the month of September 1 988. Though the plaintiff offered to pay rent to the vacant space under the st...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Sethuraman Vs. the Bharathiyar University, Rep. by Its Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC670
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 07.01.2005 passed in W.P. No. 6407 of 1997. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.3. The age of superannuation of the appellant was 58 years under the relevant statute, but it appears that the appellant obtained an interim stay order from a learned single Judge of this Court by which he continued till the age of 60 years.4. We cannot appreciate the interim orders passed by this Court which deviate from the law or which violate the law. Judges must know their limits and act within the law, and must not violate the law. In the present case, the interim order which permitted the petitioner to continue till the age of 60 years was wholly illegal since the age of superannuation is 58 years. Judges cannot create law. It is the Legislature or the appropriate delegate of the Legislature which can amend the age of retirement, but th...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Jabeen Taj Vs. Mrs. M. Parveen Banu and M. Javeed Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ24
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 196 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri is the revision petitioner in the earlier revision C.R.P. No. 1411 of 2004 and the plaintiff in that suit is the revision petitioner in the later revision C.R.P. No. 1958 of 2004.2. Earlier revision C.R.P. No. 1411 of 2004 is filed aggrieved against the dismissal order dated 10.6.2004 made in I.A. No. 370 of 2004 filed under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 75(b) C.P.C. to appoint a Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit properties and to submit a report with plan.3. Later revision C.R.P. No. 1958 of 2004 is filed challenging the correctness of the order dated 4.3.2004 made in I.A. No. 291 of 2004 filed under Order 39, Rule 1 read with Section 151 to grant interim injunction restraining the plaintiff from putting up any construction or directing the plaintiff to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit O.S. No. 196 of 2...
Tag this Judgment!The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, Vs. K. Sudhaka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC2
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. The writ appeal by the Pondicherry University as well as Writ Petition No.14 of 2004 are being decided in this common judgment. The writ appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 10.12.2003.2. The facts of the case are covered by the Supreme Court decision in State of Tamil Nadu v. S.V. Bratheep which has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 220 to 224 of 2004 (Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University v. T. Jayaprakash) decided on 23.2.2005. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it has been held that the University can prescribe higher qualifications than that fixed by the All India Council for Technical Education. In the present case the qualifications prescribed by the University are higher than those fixed by the Medical Council of India. In view of the Supreme Court judgment referred to above such higher qualifications are valid.3. In view of the above Supreme Court decision and our Division B...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.S.A.A. Farooq Ali Vs. the Sub-registrar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(4)CTC513; (2005)3MLJ445
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. Though the first of these writ petitions is not connected with the other three writ petitions, in view of the fact that the question of law which arises for consideration is common, all the four writ petitions are taken together.2. The issue which arises for consideration is as regards whether the Samadhan Scheme introduced by the Tamil Nadu Government in G.O. Ms. No. 193, Commercial Taxes Department dated 27.12.2004 could apply to proceedings pending at the appellate stage also or whether the relief is to be restricted only to proceedings pending before the original authority.3. By the said Government Order, the Tamil Nadu Government took into consideration the arrears of stamp duty payable on deeds of sale, exchange, gift, etc., and had thought it fit to introduce the Samadhan Scheme under the Government Order. The parties in these cases, though they have suffered an order against them by the original authority, have filed appeals and the appeals were ...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Railway Mazdoor Union Rep. by Its General Secretary Mr. N. Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC115
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Original Application No: 83 of 2005 has been filed for grant of an ad interim injunction restraining the first and second respondents from in any manner interfering with the administration of the 6th respondent college and to appoint an Administrator to administer the affairs of the 6th respondent college pending disposal of the suit.2. Original Application No:153 of 2004 has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants 2 to 5 from withdrawing any amount lying to the credit of the first respondent trust and the sixth respondent college, except for the expenses for the day to day administration of the college which is to be accounted pending disposal of the suit.3. Original Application No:154 of 2004 has been filed to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants 2 to 5 from functioning as Trustees of the first respondent Trust pending disposal of the suit.4. Original Application No:155 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »