Chennai Court September 2005 Judgments
B. Kumar Vs. Management of National Institute of Port Management, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)ILLJ862Mad; 2005(4)LLN658
P.K. Misra, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present litigations are as follows: The National Institute of Port Management was formed in 1984 and registered as a Society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. The Institute functions under the supervision of a Governing Body consisting of the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport as ex-officio Chairman and other Members representing the Ministry of Surface Transport, Planning Commission. Shipping interests, National Management Institutes, the Indian Ports Association and also some major ports. The Institute was set up to train the officers of the major ports of India. The dispute in these matters relate to disciplinary proceedings and subsequent determination by the Proceeding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. For convenience, the contesting respondent in writ petition is referred to as the workman and the petitioner in the Writ Petition is referred to as the Man...
Tag this Judgment!The President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Vs. Mr. A. Kalyanasundara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2005
Reported in: [2005]279ITR305(Mad); (2005)4MLJ372
ORDERMarkandeya Katju, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench dated 30.06.2005 in O.A. No. 140/2005.2. Heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the petitioner. None has appeared for the first respondent, although the name of his counsel has been shown in the cause list. Since to-day's date was fixed as agreed between counsels for the parties we are not inclined to adjourn the case.3. The first respondent was working as Senior Vice President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT') from 18.10.2000 till the date of his transfer order to Bangalore dated 07.01.2005. It is the aforesaid transfer order dated 07.01.2005 which was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal.4. The first respondent has thus completed more than four years at Chennai. It is well settled that transfer is an exigency of service. Moreover Section 252(...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Subramania Naidu Vs. Dr. Ambedkar People Liberation Front, Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: 2005(5)CTC602; (2005)4MLJ390
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 152 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam, Vellore District is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein has filed the said suit for bare injunction. Pending suit, the person representing the respondent herein has filed I.A. No. 680 of 2003 under Order I Rule 8 CPC to permit him to file the suit in a representative capacity. The trial court, after hearing both sides allowed the said application, hence, the present civil revision petition.2. By order dated 16-04-2005, this Court appointed Mrs. Shantha Kumari, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae in this matter to assist this Court to dispose of this revision petition.3. Though the respondent was served and their name is printed in the cause list today, none represents them. 4. Mr. D. Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that before the trial court, the respondent herein has marked exhibits P1 to P21, but not let in any oral evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!The Director General, Coast Guard and Union of India (Uoi), Reptd. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ447
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 18.08.2003 made in W.P. No.14388 of 2003.2. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.3. This case discloses a gross abuse of process of the court. The respondent herein/writ petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition in Orissa High Court, being O.J.C. No.12775 of 1999, for the same relief which he has claimed in the Writ Petition out of which the present Writ Appeal arises. Before the Orissa High Court, the respondent herein had challenged the re-convening of the Coast Guard Court, but that Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court on 05.03.2003.4. Surprisingly, Writ Petition No.14388 of 2003 was filed in this Court by the same petitioner and for the very same relief as claimed before the Orissa High Court, and yet, surprisingly, that Writ Petition was entertained in violation of the well settled principle of res judica...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Santhanalakshmi Investments (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: [2006]129CompCas789(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. This is an application made under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking for an order of the Scheme of Amalgamation between M/s. Santhanalakshmi Investments Private Limited, the Transferor Company and M/s. E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, the Transferee Company and the respective shareholders as found in Annexure 'E' with effect from 1-5-2005, as determined in terms of the Scheme so as to bind all the shareholders and creditors of the petitioner-company and on the petitioner-company as well and consequently to order for dissolution of the petitioner-company without winding up.2. Necessary legal formalities had been complied with as stipulated under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. As regards the holding of the meetings and filing of the applications are stated to have been duly complied with, after framing of the Scheme of Amalgamation.3. When this application was taken up for sanction of the said Scheme of Amalgamation, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Snehlata Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2005
Reported in: (2006)200CTR(Mad)317
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.The petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30-12-1999 passed and conveyed to the petitioner by respondent No. 2, CIT, Bhopal (Annex. P/1) whereby, the declaration made by the petitioner, under the provisions of Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the VDI Scheme, 1997) submitted on 9-12-1997 before the IT department for issuance of certificate as per provisions under section 68(2) of VDI Scheme, 1997, was refused to be entertained on the ground that the gold Ginnis claimed to have been acquired at the time of marriage on 11-7-1959 and declaration was sought for the assessment year 1963-64 whereas the valuation of the gold ornaments were done as on 1-4-1962 which was not in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the VDI Scheme, 1997, any income which was not disclosed prior to December, 1997, could...
Tag this Judgment!Sub Collector Vs. R.S. Raveendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ510
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the common Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram dated 20-7-1995, made in L.A.O.P.Nos. 1/90 etc., the Sub Collector, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District has filed the above appeals.2. Certain extent of lands in Aloor village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District were acquired by the Government. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published on 11-6-1987. The Land Acquisition Officer, after enquiry, passed an award fixing market value at the rate of Rs.326.65 per Cent on 13-5-1989. Not satisfied with the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, at the instance of the land owners, the matters were referred to Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram, which resulted in L.A.O.P.Nos. 1/90 etc. On consideration of the materials placed, the learned Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation by fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.812/- per cent ...
Tag this Judgment!T.H. Syed Ahmed Vs. T.H. Mustaq Ahmed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ445(2)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.06.2004 made in I.A.No.705 of 2004 laid by the revision petitioner in a suit, O.S.No.145 of 2002, for bare injunction.2. The said suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant pleading that the respondent/defendant was in exclusive possession of the suit property, based on which, issues were framed, witnesses were examined and the evidence was also closed.3. At that stage, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.705 of 2004 under Order 23 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action including the relief of declaration. 4. The Court below finding that nothing prevented the plaintiff to include the relief of declaration in the present suit itself by way of an amendment and that the plaintiff has not shown sufficient reason to get the relief, dismissed the said application by an order dated 21.6.2004. 5. Aggrieved against ...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Mandvi Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Viswa Bandhu, Rep., by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Mad47; II(2006)BC510; [2006]129CompCas328(Mad); 2005(5)CTC41; (2005)4MLJ622
A. Kulasekaran, J.1. The appellant in S.A.No.1430 of 1991 and 1431 of 1991 was defendant in O.S.Nos.172 and 171 of 1983 respectively, which were filed by one M/s.Viswa Bandhu and M/s. Shah Fatehchand Jawantraj for recovery of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.8,000/- respectively. The trial Court dismissed both the suits, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the trial Court, the respondents 1 and 2 in both the second appeals have preferred appeal in A.S.Nos.37 and 38 of 1990, which were allowed, hence the present second appeals are filed.2. The facts involved in these two cases is that two Demand Drafts were drawn on Syndicate Bank, Coimbatore by the first respondent in both the second appeals which were sent by Record of Delivery to the second respondent in both the appeals, on transit it is stated they were lost. The person who managed to encash the said Demand Drafts, was introduced by the appellant Bank customer, and he has opened an account in the appellant bank, deposited the said Demand D...
Tag this Judgment!The Music Academy, Rep. by Its Executive Trustee Vs. Inspector General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)4MLJ608
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Music Academy, Madras, a famous Institute known as such in the rest of the country for its promotion of music and culture and more in news, presently within Tamil Nadu or may be Chennai, because of the legal squabbles, was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 21.8.1929, 75 years back. As per the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations, which were registered on the said date, the Governing Body called the Executive Committee consisted of one President, two or more Vice Presidents, two Trustees, two Joint Secretaries, one Treasurer and ten other Members. The registered Rules and Regulations provided that the members of the Executive Committee are to be elected at the Annual General Body Meeting and they have to hold office until fresh office bearers are elected. In 1953, the amended bye-laws provided that the term of the office bearers would be three years. On 22.4.1978, the Tamil Nadu Registration Act (Act 27 of 1975), he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »