Chennai Court July 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.
N. Veerappan Vs. Dr. M. Kandasamy,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ119
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.300/2000 is the revision petitioner herein.2. O.S.No.300/2000 was filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent herein for partition and separate possession of 5/12th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.508/2004 under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order for permission to withdraw the present suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. By order dated 15.12.2004 the trial court allowed I.A.No.508/2004 on payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid on or before 17.12.2004 to the defendants. As the cost was refused by the defendants, the same was deposited in the court and recording the same, the I.A. was allowed by the trial court on 17.12.2004. Challenging the orders dated 15.12.2004 and 17.12.2004 the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the 1st defendant in the suit alone.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and also the lea...
The General Secretary, Icf Labour Union/ir Vs. Government of India Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR974]; (2006)IIILLJ673Mad; (2006)4MLJ16
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 16.2.2006 and for consequential direction to refer the issue relating to the transfer of G. Sridhar for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai.2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner Union raised a dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 challenging the transfer of G. Sridhar before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai by order dated 18.7.2005. Conciliation proceedings initiated before the Assistant Labour Commissioner failed on the the contentions raised by the respondents 2 and 3 that the transfer is only due to administrative interest and the same is not made due to mala fide intention. The failure report was submitted on 27.9.2005 under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the first respondent. The first respondent by the ...
Viswanathan G. and anr. Vs. Reviewing Committee, State Bank of India a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2006
Reported in: (2007)1LLJ166Mad
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1627 of 1999 was the Branch Manager and the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 1642 of 1999 was the Accountant in the Mint Terminus Branch of the respondents-Bank.2. While they both were working in such capacities, in the year 1982, on similar charges that they both have afforded immediate credits to a few current accounts in respect of cheques for large amounts presented in clearing before knowing their fates, despite the return of a few of them in the past, permitting withdrawals against such credits purchasing local cheques for large amounts in excess of their discretionary powers as DDRR despite the fact that some of the cheques so purchased were returned unpaid for want of funds, withholding from the Controlling Authority the information regarding the hen marked against the TDRs held by the party while reporting purchases of cheques made from them on Form COS 325; resorting to window-dressing of deposit figures reported in the...
D. Senthil Kumar, Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer and the Sub Registrar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ1019; [2006]148STC204(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Admit. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. In this appeal filed against the order of a learned single Judge passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the question relates to the liability of an auction purchaser of a property at a public auction towards the arrears of sales tax due under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TNGST Act'), which dues are a statutory charge on the property sold, and of which the purchaser had no actual notice. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge held that the issue is covered by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of N. Padma Coffee Works and Ors. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Rock Fort Assessment Circle, Trichy reported in (1999) 114 S.T.C. 494 and the contention that the appellants are bona fide purchasers has to be established only ...
M. Sudalai Andi and ors. Vs. Government of India Rep. by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ679Mad; (2006)3MLJ931
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The common prayer in the above writ petitions is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to refer the disputes raised by the respective petitioners to the Industrial Tribunal (Central Government) by issuing notification for deciding and dispose of the disputes within a period of six months.2. The petitioners claim that their age of retirement under the second respondent is 60 years and the second respondent superanuated the petitioners at the age of 58 years. The said reduction of age by the second respondent from 60 years to 58 years was made without issuing any notice under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act to alter the service conditions. According to the petitioner, the Conciliation Officer viz. the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), submitted failure report on 26.5.2005 with regard to the disputes raised by the petitioners and the first respondent has not referred the matter to the Labour Court and therefore these w...
D. Mohan Vs. the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Trib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)IIILLJ912Mad
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the first respondent relating to I.D. No. 645/2 001, quash the award dated 21.03.2003 and issue a consequential directions to the second respondent Bank to restore the petitioner to service with effect from 01.04.1997 and give him the benefit of permanency from that date.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The petitioner joined the service of the second respondent/Bank in December 1987 as a temporary messenger in Karunguli Branch, Chengalpet and he continued in the same branch till the end of March 1997. The second respondent denied employment to the petitioner from 01.04.199 7 without taking note of the fact that the petitioner worked for a period of ten years and without retrenchment compensation or one month notice pay as contemplated under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as Act. According to the petitioner, one Madha...
Mirthagai Ali Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: 2007CriLJ1247
K.N. Basha, J.1. The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennal, in S. C. No. 341 of 1996 by the judgment dated 19-12-1997 convicting the appellant under Section 376 I. P.C. and sentencing him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting the appellant under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.2. This is an unfortunate case wherein, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence of sexual assault inside a sacred place viz., Dharga.3. The accused faced the trial in the following backdrop:(a) P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix in this case. P.W. 2 is the mother of the prosecutrix, P.W. 1. The father of the prosecutrix is running a cycle tube punctur...
A. Veeriya Perumal Vs. the Secretary to Government, Health and Family ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ335
D. Murugesan, J.1. The appellant joined in the Medical Department on 4.8.66. He was issued with a Charge Memo dated 28.5.99 containing six charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. As all the charges were held to be proved in the enquiry, finally, the Government in G.O.(D) No. 1074, Health and Family Welfare (I-1) Department dated 5.10.2004 imposed the punishment of Censure on the appellant. He was also issued with another Charge Memo dated 14.12.99 containing one charge, which was also held to be proved. Finally the Government in G.O.(D) No. 214, Health and Family Welfare (I-1) Department dated 17.3.2006 imposed the punishment of Censure. The appellant was also issued with another Charge Memo dated 30.6.99 containing twelve charges. In the enquiry all the charges were held to be proved, as could be seen from the report of the enquiry officer dated 2.2.2002. While the matter was pending before the Government, a clarification was sought regar...
intex Technologies (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Cac)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST536(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records comprised in TNGST/0581453/2004-05 dated June 7, 2006 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to collect tax at four per cent as per the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 on the sale of hub ethernet as accessory to computers, or classify the item hub ethernet as peripherals to computers falling under entry 18(i) of Part B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are dealing in the business of trading in computer peripherals and accessories. The computer peripherals and accessories are imported from outside India and sold to wholesale dealers all over the country. The petitioner had also effected sales of hubs ethernet port 8 and 16 used in wired LAN, treating them as accessories to compu...
N. Kuberan Vs. Indian Bank, Tindivanam Branch, Rep. by Its Branch Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC322; (2006)4MLJ105
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition filed against the order and Decree dated 13.10.2003 made in I.A. No. 55 of 2001 in R.C.O.P No.3 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Tindivanam.2. The landlord who filed R.C.O.P No. 3 of 2000 under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the revision petitioner herein.3. R.C.O.PNo.3 of 2000 was filed by the landlord/petitioner for fixing the fair rent and to direct the tenant bank to pay the same to the petitioner from 01.04.1999. The landlord/petitioner filed I.A. No. 55 of 2002 under Section 18(A) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (herein after called the Act) for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition property with the help of a P.W.D Engineer to decide the fair rent of the petition property by filing a report before the rent Controller. This petition was seriously contested by the respondent Bank and by an order dated 13.10.2003, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »