Chennai Court April 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.
K.C. Govindan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ77
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the fourth respondent issued in Roc.(M3)/40061/05, dated 31.07.2005, and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Headmaster cum Warden of GTR Middle School, Varam, Kalrayan Hills, Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 04.11.1970 at the Government Elementary School. After serving in such capacity at various Government Elementary Schools, he was promoted as a Headmaster and posted at Adi Dravidar Welfare School, Rangamangalam, Cuddalore Taluk on 01.06.1988. Later, he was transferred and posted as Headmaster and Warden, Government Tribal Elementary School, Varam, Kalrayan Hills at Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madathil Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: [2008]302ITR18(Mad)
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The appeal stands admitted on the following substantial question of law:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and, therefore, the Commissioner could not have revised the same under Section 263?2. Exercising power, under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act the Commissioner of Income-tax had set aside the order of the Assessing Officer. That order of the Commissioner of Income-tax was reversed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence, the Revenue is before this Court under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The assessment order shows that during the year 1987-88, one of the units of the assessee had purchased the negative rights of two feature films, for a consideration of Rs. 5,76,000 and Rs. 12,01,000 on August 22, 1986, and October 7, 1986, respectively. The assessment year concerned in this case is 1987-88. Under S...
N.S. Balasubramanian and ors. Vs. Food Corporation of India, Rep. by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ572
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a direction to the respondents to extend the benefits arising from the judgment of the Kerala High Court made in O.P. No. 13651 of 2001 dated 20.10.2003 as confirmed by the Division bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 293 of 2004 as well as by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 20319 of 2005, to the petitioners, who are identically situated, by stepping up petitioner's pay on par with that of the petitioner's junior Rajan C. Abraham with effect from 2.1.1993 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, etc.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.(a) Petitioners entered into the services of the Food Corporation of India as Assistant Grade-III and subsequently they were promoted to Grade-II and then to Grade-I in the year 1977-78. Petitioners' junior Rajan C. Abraham was promoted to Assistant Grade-I in the year 1985. Subsequent to the wage revision that took pl...
Sosamma Thampy Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Ult)-cum-competent Auth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ664
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of declaration, declaring that the the proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978, in R.C. No. 254/87A, dated 31.08.1989, read with Rc. No. 5633/93A, dated 25.02.19 94, by the 1st respondent has abated on the promulgation of Act 20 of 1999 and consequently, the petitioner is the owner of the property situated in No. 144, Seevaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, comprised in Survey No. 51/1B1. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.3. It is the case of the petitioner that she had purchased the land measuring one acre, under a document registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Saidapet, as document No. 780/70. The property is situated at No. 144, Seevaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, comprised in part of Survey No. 51/1B1. The petitioner further submits that proceedings were initiated by the first respondent herein f...
M. Sundersingh Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ784
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent issued in G.O.Ms. No. 155 School Education (D2) Department, dated 3.10.2002 in respect of Clause 3(IV) insofar as it relates to the condition prescribing the appointment shall be made through Employment Exchange for the approval of appointment of B.Ed Teachers in the Secondary Grade Teacher vacancy and the subsequent order of the 4th respondent dated 21.9.2002 and direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 7.1.1998 with all service and monetary benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a B.A.,B.Ed., degree holder and he is qualified to be appointed as a teacher in the Government and Private Aided Schools. Petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 7.1.1998 in the 6th Respondent School, which is a fully aided school. As the petitioner was having higher qualification than the ...
Ponni Sago Factory Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: (2007)5VST223(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. In these batch of writ petitions the assessment orders/revised assessment orders passed by the respective assessment officers have been challenged on the following grounds:a) The order of the first respondent is arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India; b) The impugned assessment is a mala fide exercise of power lacking in banafides for the collateral purpose of raising an arbitrary and disproportionate liability to hurt the petitioners; c) The condition precedent for the exercise of power under Section 12(2) is incorrectness and incompleteness of the return submitted by the assessee and for this purpose no objective facts have been examined and evidence established. There is no finding of even a single proved purchase or sales omission. The records maintained in the course of business of the petitioners have not been shown to the unworthy of acceptance. d) The flat rate assessment by arbitrarily adopting ...
Danial Textiles and anr. Vs. State Bank of Travancore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: I(2007)BC223
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The short point involved in this Revision is whether the order of the trial Judge in condoning the delay of 3308 days in re-presenting the application filed for passing of final decree is correct or not.2. Mr. Venkatramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner very strenuously contended that no reason much less the sufficient cause as contemplated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been stated in the affidavit tiled in support of the application to condone the delay. Though the delay is stated to have been caused in re-presenting the petition filed for passing of final decree, the petition ought to have been re-presented within a reasonable period of time after complying with the defects pointed out by the Trial Court. But without doing so, after keeping the petition pending for nearly 10 years, now the application to condone the delay has been filed. Furthermore, the reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application is that the peti...
M. Vairavan Vs. R.V. Periannan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: 2(2007)BC49
ORDERS.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order and decretal order dated 24.11.2004 made in I.A. No. 293 of 2004 in O.S. No. 45 of 2000 on the file of Subordinate Court, Sivagangai, in allowing the respondent/4th plaintiff to act as Power Agent for the other plaintiffs 3 to 7.2. The suit was on a pronote and as one among the three brothers/creditors viz., Ramanathan died, his widow, 2 sons and 2 daughters were respectively impleaded as plaintiffs 3 to 7. The 4th plaintiff was said to be the Power of Attorney of his mother and co-born. At that time when the plaint was presented as no such document of Power of Attorney was annexed, the plaint was returned. Subsequently, the parties by inadventence have failed to submit the same. The case is posted for arguments. It is at that stage the petition culminating into the impugned order was filed to permit the respondent/4th plaintiff to act as Power Agent of other plaintiffs 3 to 7 and as no prejudice was cau...
D. Balasubramanian Vs. the Principal, Accountant General (Accounts and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ613
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to pay the entire balance of GPF to the petitioner with 21% interest and penal interest at 24% as contemplated under the Rules.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:(i) The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.1994 and he was relieved from the service by the proceedings of the 5th respondent. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, even though the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.19 94, till date the payment due to the petitioner with regard to GPF remains unsettled. The 1st respondent by his proceedings dated Nil.0 6.19 94, requested the 5th respondent to furnish the details regarding the petitioner's Account No. 4860/FOR missing credits etc. According to the petitioner, inspite of his repeated requests, the GPF payable to the petitioner is not paid and ultimately he issued a counsel notice on 1...
P. Ganapathy Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Forest, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)2MLJ484
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the District Forest Officer, Vellore, dated 13.8.1997 and regularise petitioner's service as Forest Guard Watcher from 1.7.1991, the date on which petitioner's junior was given appointment as Forest Guard Watcher. 2. The brief facts of the case as could be seen from the affidavit are as follows.(a) Petitioner joined the services of the Forest Department as Plot Watcher and initially he was paid salary of Rs. 75/- per month, which was later on increased to Rs. 210/-, Rs. 225/-, Rs. 240/-, Rs. 275/-, Rs. 350/-, Rs. 425/-, Rs. 485/- and subsequen 1.4.1997 he was paid Rs. 803/- per month. Petitioner states that he is a Scheduled Caste candidate and having height of 163.5 cms. and weight of 48 Kgs. (b) Petitioner states that he was called for an interview on 6.7.199 1 for selection to the post of Forest Guard Watcher and he attended the same, but he was not selected on the ground that his height ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »