Chennai Court January 2006 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.
Chinnu and Kolandai Vs. Nagammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: 2006(1)CTC274
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the suit property absolutely belonged to them and for an injunction against the defendants not to interfere with their possession. The first and second plaintiffs are the wife and husband respectively and plaintiffs 4 to 7 are the sons and daughters of the first and second plaintiffs.2. The plaintiffs' case was that they purchased the suit property on 17.11.1972 from one Mariappan and four others under a Sale Deed and ever since the date of the said purchase, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have no right over the property. Since the defendants happened to be the relatives of the vendor of the plaintiffs, they started giving trouble as if they also have a right over the property, which resulted in the plaintiffs filing the suit for declaration and injunction. The second defendant filed a written statement ...
Vijayakumar P. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ621Mad
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondents dated September 19, 2001 and to direct the second and third respondents to absorb the petitioner as Helper in the North Chennai Thermal Power Station w.e.f. October 27, 1999 with all attendant monetary benefits under the impugned order, the second respondents has rejected the request of the petitioner to absorb him as Helper on the basis that the Forensic Department has confirmed that the signature made by the petitioner differs in various aspects.2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Group Worker in Stone Picking job in the Coal Handling Plant (CHP) of the North Chennai Thermal Power Station (NCTPS) of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board between July 21, 1995 to March 31, 1997. From April 1, 1997 to February 23, 1999, the petitioner worked through a contractor, Senthoor Pandi. He was transferred from the Coal Handling Plant to the Control & Instruction (C & I) Division...
K. Kamatchi Vs. the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ406Mad; (2006)1MLJ394
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 15.03.2001 and also for directing the first respondent to provide alternative employment to the petitioner in terms of Sections 82 and 83 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 28.09.1995 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with continuity of service etc.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in Rani Mangammal Transport Corporation on 01.09.1997 and the said Corporation has now merged with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, namely the second respondent. Though he was appointed as a Conductor, he was allotted to work as a Cashier along with two other persons. While so, on 28.01.1998, when travelling from the Head Office at Dindigul to Dindigul City, he incurred physical disability as a result of an accident and on the ground of the said major injury, he was hospitalised. On his appearing before the Regional Medical Board, he was certified ...
P. Govindan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ624
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The writ petition is preferred by an unsuccessful applicant before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the prayer for quashing of a charge memo dated 12.1.2001, issued by the Collector, Cuddalore District, the third respondent in the O.A. as well as in the writ petition, and the letter dated 11.5.2001 issued by the State of Tamilnadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Rural Development (E6) Department. 2. The background of the case which compelled the writ petitioner to approach the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is as follows:The writ petitioner joined the services as Junior Assistant as early as 14.12.1965 in the Directorate of Rural Development. By successive promotions, the writ petitioner occupied the post of a Block Development Officer with effect from 24.6.1987. The petitioner's date of retirement fell on 31.1.2001. While so, the District Collector, Cuddalore, the third respondent in the writ petition, issued a charge memo da...
V. Sarangapani (Deceased) and ors. Vs. the Collector and the Special T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ606
ORDERR. Sudhakar, J.1. This petition has been filed challenging the Gazette notification dated 22.11.1995 issued under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter called 'Act 31 of 1978') for providing house-sites to Adi-Dravidars of Kalyanapuram Village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District.2. Brief facts of the case are as under:The land of the first petitioner (since deceased, represented by legal representatives, namely petitioners 2 to 11 and the fourth petitioner, since deceased, represented by legal representatives, namely petitioners 12 to 14) was sought to be acquired by the first respondent. Therefore, the notice under Section 4(2) in Form-I under Rule 3(i) of the Rules, 1999, framed under the Act 31 of 1978, was issued on 27.09.1995 by the Special Tahsildar calling upon the first petitioner to show cause as to why the property in question should not be acquired and to give their objections, if any, for the proposed ...
The Management of E.i.D. Parry (India) Limited Vs. the Government of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: 2006(3)CTC673; (2006)IILLJ951Mad
ORDERThe following Notification will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette:-NOTIFICATIONWhereas the Government are of opinion that an industrial dispute has arisen between the workmen of Deccan Sugar Mills, Pugalur and the Managements of Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited, Madras and E.I.D.Parry (India) Limited, Pugalur in respect of matters mentioned in the Annexure to this order:And whereas in the opinion of the Governor of Tamil Nadu, it is necessary to refer the said dispute for adjudication;Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act XIV of 1 947), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that the said dispute be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras.Further, under section 10(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Industrial Tribunal, Madras-104 is requested to submit its award to Government within three months from the date of the receipt of this order.(By Order o...
K. Pichai Pillai Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by the D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ310
1. The plaintiff in the Suit is the appellant in the Second Appeal. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendants from proceeding with revenue recovery proceedings. The case of the plaintiff is that he was successful auctioner of toddy shop for the year 1983-84. Due to default of kist from September 1983, the licence was cancelled and the defendants have re-auctioned the shop in which process they have sustained damages to the extent of Rs. 11,500/-. The said auction was taken by the defendants under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The second defendant has passed an order on 15.06.1984 marked as Ex.B.12, demanding the recovery of the said amount of Rs. 11,500/-, as a loss of revenue caused to the Government due to the conduct of the plaintiff. Thereafter, a notice under Form IV was sent on 20.01.1986 under Ex.B15 and these notices were sent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act a...
S.N. Kittuswamy Vs. Palaniyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: I(2006)DMC861
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in both the Courts below is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The respondent, who is the wife, has filed the suit against the appellant who is the husband, for the recovery of Rs. 1,200 per month as maintenance. The defendant in the suit, who is the appellant herein, while admitting the relationship of husband and wife between him and the plaintiff, has disputed the quantum on the basis that he has no income to pay such huge amount per month. It is also his defence that since the plaintiff has voluntarily left his house, he has no legal obligation to maintain her, apart from the fact that he is not having any independent income. The Trial Court, after elaborate inquiry, has decided that the defendant should pay Rs. 800 per month to the plaintiff as maintenance. As against the said judgment, the defendant filed First Appeal. The First Appellate Court has also confirmed the Judgment of the Trial Court. The plaintiff also filed a Cross...
South India Surgical Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Mad)289; [2006]287ITR62(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The tax appeal is filed against the order of the Tribunal dt. 12th March, 2002 made in ITA No. 833 of 1999. The assessment year is 1996-97.2. The assessee, a company incorporated under the Companies Act is carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing surgical instruments. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee filed return of income declaring nil income after a claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) determining the turnover at Rs. 83,52,860. That determination was made on disallowance on account of exchange fluctuations in respect of purchases from foreign countries in a sum of Rs. 16,31,594, disallowance of claim of bad debts in a sum of Rs. 65,28,748 under Section 36(l)(vii) and disallowance of deduction under Section 43B in a sum of Rs. 1,05,141. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) allowed the claim relating to Section 43B, but confirmed the disallowance in respect of othe...
Gunaseelan M. Vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ656Mad; (2006)1MLJ464
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the award passed by the first respondent/Labour Court in I.D. No. 697 of 1991 dated December 20, 1995. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as a Canteen cleaner in the second respondent-Management having been employed since 1972, and he was confirmed in the year 1986. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on February 16, 1990 as per the Clause 13(4) of the Standing Orders of the second respondent/Management to the effect that he committed theft of a cycle belonging to another employee by name G. Santhanakrishnan. The petitioner has given his explanation to that memo on February 21, 1990. By a subsequent communication dated March 8, 1990, the second respondent issued another charge memo to the effect that the petitioner has threatened the security watchman Mr. Manickam and one Mr. P.M. Krishnan, for which also the petitioner submitted his explanation on March 9, 1990 denying the said charge. The second I...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »