Chennai Court June 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.
St. Mark's Educational Trust by Its Managing Trustee, Prince Babu Raje ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad298
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The judgment-debtor in the E.P. No. 110/2005 in O.S. No. 210/1988, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Alandur, is the Revision Petitioner before this Court. The respondent herein filed O.S. No. 19 8/1988 before the Sub-Court, Poonamallee for a declaration that the 'B' schedule property mentioned in the schedule is his absolute property and for directing the 1st defendant/Revision Petitioner to put the the decree holder/respondent in vacant possession of the suit property. By judgment and decree dated 31.10.1995, the trial court decreed the suit for title and dismissed the same for possession. The respondent/plaintiff herein alone filed an appeal in A.S. No. 385/1996 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by its elaborate judgment dated 29.3.2005 allowed the appeal and granted the decree for possession also. Against the judgment and decree dated 29.3.2005, the Revision Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition. But the same was also di...
Minerals Workers' Union Vs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ943Mad
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed for forbearing the respondents from deducting any amount from the monthly salary of the members of the petitioner's union irrespective of their consumption of food items from the second respondent pursuant to the first respondent's notice dated March 28, 2006.2. The case of the petitioner-union is that the first respondent is a Central Government undertaking and members of the petitioner's union numbering around 120 are the workers of the first respondent. There was a settlement arrived at between the first respondent and the various other trade unions of the workers belonging to the first respondent including the petitioner's union under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on December 8, 2005. Eventhough, the settlement relates to various matters, this writ petition covers only in respect of facilities granted to the employees regarding the canteen run by the first respondent. Admittedly, before the above settlement was ent...
The Managing Director, M.G.R. Transport Corporation Limited Vs. K. Sen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC254; 2007ACJ2664; (2006)4MLJ264
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by the Managing Director, M.G.R. Transport Corporation Limited, Kanchipuram (presently called as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Villupuram, Division III) (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Corporation) challenging the common decree and judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') made in M.C.O.P. Nos.1484 of 1993 and 1651 of 1993 dated 03.07.1997. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 1484 of 1993 and the first respondent in C.M.A. No. 58 of 1998 has filed a Cross Objection No. 42 of 2000. Since these two appeals are arising out of a common judgment of the Tribunal, I propose to decide the same together.2. For the death of P. Gurusamy, K. Senthamizh Selvi, the wife of the deceased, has filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- and the parents of the deceased have filed a petition claiming co...
The Commander Head Quarters Coast Guard Region (East), Vs. Vijaya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC696; 2008ACJ169; (2006)3MLJ515
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner-I for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai - 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') made in W.C. No. 245 of 1992 dated 21.08.1996. The respondents 2, 3 and 4 before the Commissioner are the appellants herein. The petitioner before the Commissioner is the first respondent herein and the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Engineer/Contractor') before the Commissioner is the second respondent herein.2. According to the petitioner, the Engineer/Contractor is the employer of the deceased Chinna Kutty, aged 35 years. The second respondent, the Commander of Coast Guard is the principal employer. The deceased Chinna Kutty was working as welder/coolie with Engineer/Contractor and he was receiving Rs.1,000/- as salary per month. On 31.07.1992, the deceased was directed to fix a notice board on the wall of the site belonging to the second respondent. While doing so, th...
A. Ramasamy Vs. the District Revenue Officer, (Stamps) Office of the D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ507
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. The Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records in so far as it relates to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings No. MU. Pa. No. 5286/Thi/2002, dated 03.02.2004, and quash the same.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the years 1992-1995, he was residing at Chitoor in Kerala State. In the year 1994, he had purchased lands in Tiruppur, Coimbatore District, in the State of Tamil Nadu in S. No. 582 in veerapandi village, to the extent of 1.38 acres and in S. No. 584 in veerapandi village, to the extent of 76 cents along with 3 cents in common and in S. No. 583 in veerapandi to the extent of 1.48 acres. Since the petitioner had been residing at Chitoor, he had registered the sale deed at the office of the Sub-registrar, Chitoor, on 05.10.1994. The petitioner had received original docu...
P. Mathiyalagan and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. P. Saguntha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC475
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. National Insurance Company Limited, Salem, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Company') who was the third opposite party before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem Region (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') and P. Mathiyalagan, the owner of the auto in question, who was the first opposite party before the Commissioner, are the appellants herein and they have challenged the order of the Commissioner made in W. C. No. 44 of 1995 dated 04.07.1997.2. In respect of death of one Periyannan, his wife and minor children along with his parents, have filed a petition for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. In support of their claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one R. Ganesan, a co-auto driver was examined as P.W.2 besides marking Exs. A.1 to A.5. On the side of the first and second opposite parties who...
P. Venkatesan Vs. the Management of Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Cor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ260Mad; (2006)3MLJ818
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the award dated 20.11.1996 in I.D. No. 443 of 1994 passed by the 2nd respondent and to direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages, continuity of service and other benefits and award costs.2. The facts giving raise to filing of this writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner was employed as Conductor in the first respondent Transport Corporation. On 27.3.1992, while the petitioner was on duty in the bus route 459-A, running between Kuppam and Thirupathur, at 8.00 p.m., near Pachur railway gate, the checking officials got into the bus and at that time there were 137 passengers and five luggages in the bus. When the bus reached Natrampalli, which is 3 kms away from Pachur railway gate, the checking officials found that 49 packets of liquor rolled in a gunny bag at the left side of the driver's seat. When petitioner asked the passengers, nobody claimed ownership of the liquor packets. The pet...
M. Krishnappa Vs. the Sub Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ773
ORDERK. Suguna, J. 1. Initially, the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 2788/2002 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the punishment imposed on him by the order of the 1st respondent dated 11.7.97 and confirmed by the order of the 2nd respondent dated 9.12.97 and further confirmed by the order of the 3rd respondent dated 13.8.98 and the same has been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P. No. 32502 of 2005.2. While the petitioner was working as a Village Administrative Officer, Pattaravalli Village, by the proceedings of the 1st respondent in No. 1065/95/A dated 13.11.95, a charge memo was issued against the petitioner. For the said charges, an enquiry was conducted. Since all the charges were held proved, by the order of the 1st respondent dated 11.7.97, punishment of stoppage of increment for 5 years with cumulative effect was imposed and also the period of suspension was directed to be treated as punishment period. As against this, the ...
Tvl. the Savamalai Estates Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR448(Mad); (2006)3MLJ979
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This revision is filed under Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955 to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ' Appellate Tribunal), Madras dated 08.01.2002 passed in A.T.A. No. 18 of 20 01, raising the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in law in holding that disallowance could be restricted to 20% of the expenditure incurred for use of all vehicles for private purposes due to non maintenance of log books?(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras was right in law in holding that disallowance could be restricted to 20% on probable private use of the vehicles inspite of the fact that the trip sheets produced do not indicate the use of vehicles...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2006
Reported in: [2007]288ITR146(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The revenue has filed the above appeals against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench dated 24.01.2003 in ITA Nos. 1163, 1164, 1165/97, raising the following substantial questions of law.1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in admitting the additional ground raised by the assessee, to consider the issues not pressed by the assessee before the CIT(A)?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the levy of the additional tax levied on the assessee?2. The Revenue preferred the above appeals against the remand order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The order of the Appellate Tribunal reads as follows:These are three appeals preferred by the assessee, a State Govt. Undertaking. All these appeals have a common issue. These are with reference to the observations of the CIT(A) in the last para of his order dt.14-2-97, viz., that the other grou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »