Chennai Court April 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S.N.J. Abdul Hakeem, Vs. Assisrathul Musthakeem Etheemkhana Trust, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad67; (2005)2MLJ533
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 21.03.2005. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.2. It appears that a temporary injunction dated 09.08.2004 was granted by the learned District Munsif, Perambalur in Interlocutory Application No. 282 of 2003 in O.S. No. 73 of 2003. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed in this Court to give adequate police protection to the writ petitioner for effective implementation of the aforesaid interim injunction. That writ petition has been allowed by the impugned order of the learned single Judge, and hence the present writ appeal.3. We are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. When a temporary injunction order is passed in a suit by a civil Court under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is not complied with, the remedy of the plaintiff is either to apply under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. or under Secti...
The Management of Sri Ganapathy Mills Company Ltd., Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)CTC212; [2005(106)FLR822]; (2005)2MLJ471
ORDERN. Kannadasan, J.1. The above writ petition is filed for the relief as stated therein.2. The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. While the second respondent was working as an Assistant Fitter in the Spinning Department, on 3.3.1982, he was assigned the work of changing the wheel in the frame No. 56 to convert the frame from 20s counts to 80s counts and he took 4-1/2 hours to complete the said work. According to the petitioner-management, even though to complete the said work, the normal time required is only 1-1/2 hours, the second respondent has completed the work very slowly by consuming more time resulting in loss of production and his act amounted to misconduct. According to the petitioner-management, the second respondent has committed similar misconduct on earlier occasions for which he was orally warned. Hence, a charge memo dated 4.3.19 82 was served upon the second respondent to which he has submitted necessary expl...
B. Kumar Vs. the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Indl. Tribunal-cum-l ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)IIILLJ30Mad
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The question raised in this writ miscellaneous petition is regarding the entitlement of the respondent employee to wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial `Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act' for short). The second respondent was working as a driver in the appellant undertaking. He was issued with a show-cause notice on the ground that he had contracted a second marriage with his co-employee while the first wife was living. The Enquiry Officer gave a report absolving the second respondent from the guilt. But the disciplinary authority found the second respondent guilty and terminated him from service. This was confirmed by the appellate authority. The Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the termination order must be set aside and that the second respondent was entitled to the prayer of reinstatement. However, the Industrial Tribunal did not grant the second respondent any backwages. Against this, the present writ miscell...
Dr. Amala Devi, Joint Director of Health Services Vs. the Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ149
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the order of transfer. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits at the outset that while it is well settled that transfer orders are normally not interfered with in writ jurisdiction, there are special features in this case, which warrant interference. 2. The writ petitioner joined as an Assistant Surgeon on 03.6.1972. According to her, she was subjected to frequent transfers from March 1999. The dates of transfer are relevant, which are extracted as under:-(1) Govt.Hospital, From 1.2.1999 to 24.3.1999Dindigul.(2) Govt.Hospital, From 25.3.1999 to 25.1.2000Periyakulam.(3) Govt.Hospital, From 26.1.2000 to 01.4.2000Dindigul.(4) Govt.Hospital, From 1.4.2000 to 18.5.2000Periyakulam.(5) Govt.Hospital, From 19.5.2000 to 27.11.2000Dindigul.(6) Govt.Hospital, From 28.11.2000 to 23.1.2001Usilampatti.(7) Govt.Hospital, From 24.1.2001 to 01.3.2001Periyakulam.(8) Govt.Hospital, From 02.3.2001 to 21.2.2002Dindigul.(9...
Roshanlal Kapoor Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: (2007)108TTJ(Chennai)740
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) and relates to the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The first issue relates to the levy of interest under Section 234A of the IT Act, 1961. Assessee paid self-assessment tax under Section 140A in December, 1997. Return was filed in August, 1999. Interest under Section 234A was charged until the date of filing the return. It was submitted before me that interest under Section 234A was compensatory and it should be charged only upto the date of payment of tax. To buttress this, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy and Anr. v. CIT this case the Hon'ble High Court has held that interest under Section 234A is payable in a case where tax has not been deposited prior to due date of filing of return, and not where tax has been paid but return has been filed belatedly. No contrary decision was brought before me. I, therefore, direct the AO to recompute the inter...
N. Vasudevan and T.G. Gurunathan Vs. the Recovery Officer Drt Ii and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: I(2006)BC390; 2005(3)CTC389; (2005)2MLJ624
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.1. Both the revisions are filed against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal in DRC No. 205 of 2002 in O.A. No. 2014 of 2001 dated 21.7.2004 and the revision petitioners are third parties in respect of the proceedings pending before the first respondent, the Recovery Officer DRT-II. 2. The revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1821 of 2004, viz., N. Vasudevan claims that he and his family members have been in possession of the entire second floor of the building and premises bearing door No. 4/10, Balamurugan Street, Parthasarathy Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-39 as a tenant since 1996 under the defaulter/borrower in D.R.C. No. 205 of 2002. 3. The revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1822 of 2004, viz., T.G. Gurunathan claims that he and his family members have been in possession of the entire ground floor of the building and premises bearing door No. 4/10, Balamurugan Street, Parthasarathy Nagar, Vyasarpadi, Chennai-39 as a tenant since 1996 under the defaul...
Gunasekaran, Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ550
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 6.8.1999. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The case relates to a proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It appears that the original land owner was one Ramasamy Gounder, who died in Singapore ten years before the land acquisition proceedings began. There is nothing to show that a show cause notice was served under section 4(2) of the Act by the District Collector on the heirs of Ramasamy Gounder. Section 4(2) of the Act reads as follows:-'Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the District Collector or any officer authorised by the District Collector in this behalf, shall call upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the District Collector or the officer so authorised may be interested in such land, to show cause ...
Airport Director, International Airport Authority of India, Internatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ561
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against an interim order dated 13.08.2003 passed in Writ Miscellaneous Petition No.19375 of 2003 in Writ Petition No.15436 of 2003. By that interim order, the injunction application in the writ petition has been rejected. 2. While hearing the writ appeal we also decided to hear the writ petition itself because we were of the view that the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Land Acquisition Officer in his Award dated 16.09.2002 has Awarded interest for more than 17 years with effect from 01.07.1985, and it is against this direction that the writ petitioner is aggrieved. 3. In our opinion, the writ petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Act because the direction against which the writ petitioner is aggrieved is contained in the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act states:- ...
The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Rep. by Its Chairman and the Chief En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: (2005)2MLJ494
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The respondent-writ petitioner, is the Federation of the Employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. On 16.10.2004, the second appellant, by Letter No. 81288/875/G.56/G.561/2004-1, called for applications from willing employees in the categories of Junior Assistant/ Administration and Junior Assistant/Accounts for appointment by transfer to the post of Junior Auditor. The requisite qualification was possession of a Bachelor's Degree viz., B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. 2. The method of recruitment to the post of Junior Auditor is governed by Regulation No. 94 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations. It is as follows :-a) By direct recruitment;b) Appointment from -i)Junior Assistants in the Board Office Administration Branch, Accounts Branch, Technical Branch, and other Subordinate Offices (or)ii) Appointments from Typists including Steno-Typists (or)iii) Appointments from Assessors in Circle Offices.According to the respondent, the appellants have violated A...
Rukmani Ammal, Rep. by Her Power Agent P.R. Subramaniam Vs. N. Pandura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-2005
Reported in: 2005(2)CTC413; (2005)2MLJ378
ORDERP.K. Misra, J. 1. The present civil revision is directed against the order passed by the Principal District Court, Pondicherry, in an appeal arising out of a Rent Control Proceedings. 2. The Rent Control Proceedings had been initiated by the present petitioner, who has been found to be the landlady in respect of the disputed premises. It is also not disputed that initially one Narasimalu Chettiar, the father of the present respondent, was the tenant in respect of the premises and he was carrying on his business in such premises. After the death of the aforesaid Narasimalu Chettiar, the present respondent was carrying on his business in paddy and rice on payment of monthly rent of Rs.600/-. According to the petitioner, he was very irregular in payment of rent and he had defaulted to pay rent for the months of July and August, 1990. An Advocate's notice was issued to the respondent and thereafter proceeding for eviction was initiated on the ground that the tenant had wilfully defaul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »