Chennai Court July 2006 Judgments
The Management Gedee Weiler Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P. Swaminathan and the Presi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1197
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner seeks to quash the order made in Complaint No.1 of 1997 dated 27.2.1998 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows.(a) Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of High Precision Capstan Lathes, Tool Room Lathes and Automats. Petitioner has got branches all over the South India. The petitioner Management used to transfer/depute personnel from its manufactur , who knows servicing, to all the branches for a specific period depending upon the exigency of work. (b) Petitioner Management received a letter on 23.6.1997 from the Senior Sales Officer, Chennai branch, requesting to depute a person to attend the complaint/service of Gedee Weiler Lathes. Pursuant to the said letter, the first respondent was red to Chennai branch Office by order dated 5.7.1997. The first respondent failed to comply with the said order and did not report for duty at Che...
Tag this Judgment!R. Mark Vs. the District Elementary Educational Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1173
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order of the third respondent dated 30.6.2006 and consequently direct the respondents to re-employ him as Headmaster in the 3rd respondent School from 1.7.2006 till the end of the academic year 20 007 i.e., 31.5.2007.2. Petitioner who was serving as Headmaster in the third respondent School was not given re-employment from 1.7.2006 to 31.5.2007 and he was relieved on 30.6.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the affidavit filed in support of the ition, petitioner contends that he had put in 28 years of service as Headmaster besides 10 years of service as Secondary Grade Teacher and his entire service was without blemish. According to the petitioner, the impugned order does not say any reason f or not giving the benefit of re-employment, which has to be given to the petitioner in terms of various Government Orders. 3. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated ...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Collector Vs. Krishnan (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC483; (2006)4MLJ1077
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.1995 in L.A.O.P. No. 198 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Salem. The respondent in the L.A.O.P. is the appellant herein.2. The lands belonging to the claimants, who are the respondents herein, were acquired for the establishment of Udayapatti Electricity Sub Station. Not satisfied with the amount of compensation, the claimants sought for a reference and accordingly, the matter was referred to the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. In the reference, the case of the claimants, in brief, is as under:3.1. The lands are situate in a well developed urban residential locality abutting the main road and they are abutting the Salem Steel Plant Bye-pass road which branches from Salem-Cuddalore Main Road. The co-operative Industrial Estate, Udayapatty, Sago Industry, Rubber Tire Stocking Yard, Match Factory Unit, Cooperative Spinning Mill, Holy Cross Matric...
Tag this Judgment!P. Eswaran Vs. J.A. Abdul Hameed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC510; 2006(5)CTC296
K.N. Basha, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the complainant challenging the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, in C.C. No. 134 of 1996 dated 22.11.2002 acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'The Act').2. The case of the complainant is that on 10.04.1996, the accused borrowed Rs. 2,50,000/- from him with a promise to return the same within a period of two months. Thereafter, the complainant made several reminders to the accused to repay the amount and ultimately on 10.05.1996, the accused issued a cheque, Ex.P.1, dated 10.05.1996 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Avinashi Branch, in favour of the complainant. The complainant further stated that on 23.08.1996, he has deposited the cheque, Ex.P.1, dated 10.05.1996 before the State Bank of India, Avinashi. Thereafter, the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of 'Insufficient Funds'. Ex.P.2 is the Banker's Memo. Ex.P.3 is the...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kannan Vs. the Director of School Education,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC57
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.119453/W1(3)/05 dated 26.4.2006 and direct the respondents to correct his date of birth in the SSLC book as '5.6.1950' instead of 10.6.1948 as per the decree and judgment O.S.No.4670 of 1979 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 5.2.1981.2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are as follows.(i) The original date of birth of the petitioner is 5.6.1950. However, when he was admitted into the School, his father gave a wrong date of birth as 10.6.1948 and therefore in the SSLC book, his date of birth is entered as 10.6.1948 instead of 0. Petitioner passed SSLC in the year 1967, passed M.A., M.P.Ed., degrees and was appointed as Physical Director in the Government Higher Secondary School, Mettur Dam in the year 1976, where he is working till date. (ii) Petitioner was...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC450; (2006)4MLJ327; [2006]148STC256(Mad)
ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. The point that present itself before the Full Bench is whether mens rea is an essential ingredient for the levy of penalty under Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The decisions of this Court under Section 10-A of the Act have not been consistent, while in some of the decisions such as State of Tamil Nadu v. Betala Industries (1993)88 STC 328, Sri Lakshmi Machine Works v. State of Madras (1973) 32 STC 407 and in Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 82 STC 296, it was held that it was necessary to find out whether the act or omission of the assessee resulting in commission of the violations of the Act and dealt with in Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Section 10 of the Act, mens rea was present, in Vijaya Electricials v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 82 STC 268, Kumudham Printers (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 95 STC 453, State of Tamil Nadu v. C.A.Akthar and Co. ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Subramani Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC444; (2006)4MLJ1148; 2008(1)SLJ180(NULL); 2006(6)AIRKarR137(FB)(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J. 1. The correctness of the decision of a Division Bench in The Special Officer, Vellakovil Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank, Vellakovil, Erode District v. C. Poongodi 2004 (5) CTC 299 is the question that is raised in this appeal. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has held that in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 76(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, an order of suspension passed by the competent authority or society without specifying the suspension period is not valid.2. The factual position is almost undisputed, and needs to be noted in brief.The appellant was working as a Cashier-cum-Secretary In-charge of the second respondent bank. During his tenure as Clerk-cum-Secretary In-charge, he committed various acts of misappropriation and falsification of accounts, etc., causing huge loss to the second respondent bank. He was placed under suspension by order dated 5.9.2003. A Charge Memo dated 21.2.2004 was also issued to the a...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnannan Vs. Paranimalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: 2006(5)CTC169; (2006)4MLJ1067
M. Thanikachalam, J.1. The 4th defendant is the appellant.2. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, has filed the suit for declaration, that he is the owner of the suit property, and for possession. The claim is based upon Ex.A.1 settlement deed dated 4.8.1969, executed by his father Srinivasan, who is the second respondent in the appeal. After the settlement deed, it seems, the father had alienated a portion of the suit property in favour of the appellant/4th defendant, for himself and as guardian of the plaintiff, under Ex.A.2 document dated 24.5.1972. The plaintiff, questioning this Ex.A.2 sale deed and another sale deed executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the 5th defendant under Ex.A.3, dated 23.1.1976, has filed the suit for declaration and possession, as if those sale deeds will not bind him, since the properties belonged to him, as his separate properties, which cannot be sold by the guardian.3. The defendants 4 and 5 contested the suit jointly alleging that the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Marothi Chits (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. N.S. Ramakris ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-2006
Reported in: [2006]133CompCas869(Mad)
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal of the accused, who was prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:(a) The complainant filed a private complaint against the accused who was a subscriber of the chit for the value of Rs. 2 lakhs. The accused was paying monthly a sum of Rs. 10,000/=. He was the successful bidder in the auction held on 23.10.1996 and the bid was for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/=. The accused received the amount and also executed necessary documents. The accused defaulted in payment of installments and when the complainant approached him for collection of the outstanding amount, he issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 92,000/= drawn on Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Coimbatore and requested the complainant to present the cheque in the last week of July 1998. When the cheque was presented on 31.7.1998, it was returned unpaid, because the account was already...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Balaji Detergents and Chemicals
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-2006
Reported in: (2007)106TTJ(Chennai)480
1. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the orders of CIT(A) for respective assessment years. Since common issue has been raised, these appeals are consolidated and disposed of together by this common order.2. The issue raised is that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee company under Section 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961 by holding that soaps are different from detergents. The assessee in this case is a manufacturer of detergent cakes. It claimed deduction under Section 80-IA of the IT Act. This claim was disallowed by the AO on the ground that the assessee is not a small-scale industry and the item "soaps" falls under Entry No. 4 of Sch. XI to the IT Act. The AO rejected assessee's submissions in this regard and held that "technically soaps and detergents may be different items but under common law parlance and common usage, the term 'soap' includes 'detergents' also.4. Upon assessee's appeal, the learned CIT(A) made distinction between "soaps"...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »