Chennai Court April 2005 Judgments
C.D. Sampath and ors. Vs. State Bank of India, Rep. by Its Chief Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)3MLJ562; 2006(2)SLJ257(NULL)
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition and the connected writ petitions are disposed of by this common order, since common questions of law and facts are involved. We are treating W.P. No. 18272 of 2001 as the leading case. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in all these petitions and have perused the record.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 18272 of 2001 is for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent - State Bank of India represented by its General Manager (D& PB), Chennai, and to permit the petitioner therein to retire under the SBI-VRS Scheme as MMGS-II, and to restore all the terminal and other benefits as envisaged in the scheme by directing the 2nd respondent to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner as per the said scheme.3. The State Bank of India came out with a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its staff known as the SBI VRS Scheme. Through its circular dated 02.01.2001 the bank enumerated the conditions f...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaraju, S/O. N.A. Subbaraja Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC741
ORDER1. These two public interest litigations have been filed on behalf of some of the residents of Rajapalayam in Virudhunagar District and Kodaikanal in Dindigul District respectively. The questions raised in both the writ petitions being similar, such petitions were heard together and shall be disposed by the common order.2. W.P. No. 1964 of 2005 has been filed by a resident of Rajapalayam, who is running a Social Welfare Organisation, seeking prevention of eviction of poor people who are in occupation of Government poramboke lands in Rajapalayam Municipal Area. It has been stated in the affidavit that Malayadipatti Village in Rajapalayam Municipality has a total population of about 20,000 and even today, the authorities of the temple are demanding lease amount from the people stating that the lands are temple lands and on the other hand the fourth respondent Municipality continues to assess and collect property tax from the people. It is further stated that the other areas like Ava...
Tag this Judgment!S. Shanmugham Vs. S. Sundaram,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ552
S.K. Krishnan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2002 passed in A.S.No.139 of 2001 by the Second Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.2. The facts-in-brief leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: a. Originally, the appellant/plainitff has filed a suit in O.S.No.262 of 1988 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur for partition and separate possession. b. The first and fourth defendants in the suit are father and mother of the plaintiff respectively. The second and third defendants are the brothers of the plaintiff. c. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, passed a preliminary decree holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5 th share in the plaint schedule properties and therefore, 1/5 th share in all the schedule properties be handed over to the plaintiff. d. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.893 of 1992 before the trial Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Pullicar Mills Ltd., rep. by the Managing Director Vs. Employees' Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ388Mad
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 8.3.2005. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The writ petition was filed against the demand notice under section 45B of the Employees' State Insurance Act. In our opinion, the writ petitioner/appellant had a clear alternative remedy of filing an application under section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act before the Employees' State Insurance Court. It is not proper for this Court to straightaway entertain writ petitions when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available. Hence both the writ petition and the writ appeal are dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.3. However, if the appellant files an application under section 75 of the Act within one month from today, the same will be entertained without raising any objection as to limitation and shall be decided on merits expeditiously thereafter. We also make it clear that the Employee...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)198CTR(Mad)574; [2005]277ITR22(Mad)
1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short 'the Act') filed on behalf of the assessee.2. Heard the learned counsel for the assessee and for the department.3. The appellant company during the Assessment Year 1990-91 purchased certain securities viz., HUDCO Shelter Bonds Series II and III Rural Electrification Corporation Bonds. The appellant company claimed interest earned from these securities as exempt within the meaning of Section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act.4. The assessing officer denied the exemption for part of the interest. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the entire claim of exemption of interest on such bonds. The Tribunal was also inclined to allow the exemption of interest on these bonds, but it held that if these bonds were purchased from the market the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank v C.I.T, : [1991]187ITR541(SC) would apply. Hence the Tribunal remanded the matter, and directed the assessing officer to examine this aspect.5. I...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Government All Department Watchman and Basic Servants Assoc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ570
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The prayer in these four writ petitions is similar which is as follows:'To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu to fill up the four vacancies to the post of Chairman, Vice Chairman, two Administrative Members for the two Benches of the Administrative Tribunal and allow the Tribunal to function effectively until the Tribunal is abolished by the Central Government through the proper procedure which would take long time.'2. The circumstances brought out by the counsel for the petitioners which necessitated them to approach this Court with the above prayer for Mandamus are as follows:'Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal before which the Government Servants seek redressal of their grievances started functioning from 12.12.1988. The Government appointed Administrative Staff to run the Tribunal. As it has been constituted as a substitute for High Court, more number of Staff were recruited to look after Judicial, Administrative and Establishm...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sood and Co., (Manufacturing) Represented by Its Partner Krishna Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: IV(2005)BC247; 2005(3)CTC12; (2005)2MLJ603
S.K. Krishnan, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.S. No. 1014 of 1994, dated 14.1.2000, the plaintiff has preferred this Original Side Appeal. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: a. On 3.4.1992 the defendant placed orders with the plaintiff, who is the dealer in stainless steel and manufacturer of alloy and special steel bright bars, for the supply of 11700 kgms of S.S. Pipes. The plaintiff accepted the said orders at its Madras office and agreed to supply the same through its Non-Residential Office at Bombay. Thereafter, the plaintiff delivered the goods to the defendant on credit for Rs. 14,18,625/- under invoice No. DO.1/1/92-93, dated 3.4.1992. The defendant also agreed to pay interest at 22.5% after 60 days. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of the goods and agreed to pay the amount after adjusting the advance of Rs. 7 lakhs paid to its sister concern M/s.Metal Processing Industries P....
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Panchayat Vs. S. Selvam,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad302
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 6.4.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.8461 of 2004.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.3. It appears that the Selection Grade Panchayat, Chengam, granted lease in respect of 26 shops in Thokkapettai Town Bus Stand, Chengam, in favour of some third parties from 1.4.1995 to 31.3.1998. Thereafter the lease was renewed for a further period of three years i.e. from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2001 without putting the shops to public auction/public tender. Again the lease was renewed for another period of three years i.e from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2004 in favour of the very same persons which was questioned in the writ petition by the first respondent herein.4. In our opinion, ordinarily once the period of lease or grant of public property expires it should be put to public auction/public tender after advertising in well known newspapers having wide circulation so that everybody elig...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanthakumar @ Vasanthan and Lingam Alias Linga Vs. State of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2622
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Since the issue involved in both these petitions is similar, a common order is being passed.2. Vasanthakumar, petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1241 of 2004, and Lingam, petitioner in H.C.P. No. 1272 of 2004, have filed these Habeas Corpus Petitions, seeking for quashing of the detention orders in G.O. Nos. SR.III/2628-3/97, dated 03.10.1997, and SR.III/3344-18/94, dated 24.05.1995, respectively on the file of the first respondent, namely, Secretary to Government, Public (S.C.) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009, and for setting them at liberty.3. According to the petitioners, they are Sri Lankan Tamilians. They came to India in the year 1991. They were arrested by the C.B.I. Police and kept in their custody. Vasanthakumar alias Vasanthan was implicated as an accused in E.P.R.L.F. Leader Padmanabha murder case and he was lodged in Central Prison, Chennai, as a TADA accused. In the year 1992, a charge sheet was filed against the said Vasanthan and other...
Tag this Judgment!Thiru Venkata Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariar Vs. State, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2460
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Venkata Saravanan @ S.A.R. Prasanna Venkatachariar Chathurvedi, petitioner herein, has been detained by the order of the detaining authority, dated 15.12.2004, branding him as a 'Goonda'. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition, filed by the detenu himself.2. The main point urged by Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is, that the detaining authority has not noted any adverse case against the petitioner, coming under Chapters XVI,XVII and XXII of the Indian Penal Code nor the detaining authority had come to the conclusion that the detenu is a 'Goonda' or that the petitioner has acted contrary to the public order and, on the other hand, the acts committed by the petitioner, as stated in the grounds of detention, do not constitute the acts, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, but only the acts detrimental to the maintenance of law and order; hence, the detention order is incurably def...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »