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.
The Commissioner H.R. and C.E.(A) Department Vs. Sri Bhagavanandhar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1145
P.K. Misra, J.1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department has filed this appeal under the Letters Patent challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 608 of 1995 dated 1.8.2001, under the following circumstances:The respondent had filed O.A. No. 169 of 1996 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board for declaration under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, that the disputed institution is not a religious institution. It was also prayed that the trustee was holding office as a hereditary trustee as contemplated under Section 63(b) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner found that the institution is a religious institution and declared the present respondent as hereditary trustee. Such order was challenged before the Commissioner in AP. No. 214 of 1977, but the said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner. Thereafter, as ...
Fathimabi, Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Commissioner and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ917
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the common order dated 14.08.2001 made in W.P.Nos.9318 to 9321 of 1993, the appellants / land owners have filed the above appeals.2. Heard Mr. K.M. Santhanagopalan, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. C. Thirumaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. In the light of the order to be passed hereunder, we are of the view that there is no need to traverse all the factual details; however, the fact remains that the learned single Judge, by the impugned common order, quashed the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ' the Act ') and all further proceedings subsequent to Section 4(1) notification leaving the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in tact with the liberty granted to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law.4. The learned Counsel for the appellants, by drawing our attention to the fact that inasmuch as Section 4(1) notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Governmen...
Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Southern Agrifurane Ind. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: 2008[12]STR526
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the Final Order No. 565 of 2004, dated 7-7-2004 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for brevity 'CESTAT')/ by the Revenue raising the following substantial questions of law under the facts and circumstances stated therein:(a) Whether the Tribunal is correct in not considering the plea of limitation raised before it by way of miscellaneous petition?(b) Whether the Tribunal is correct in placing reliance on a letter dated 23-7-96, which is an unauthenticated document?(c) Whether the Tribunal is correct in ordering for the refund even in cases where there is cover-up and wrong representation of facts and when a party to the dispute is approaching the Authorities without clean hands and without properly considering the application of doctrine of unjust enrichment?2.1 The brief facts of the case are as under: The first respondent (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the assessee') is a manufacturer of ...
Smt. Pattammal Vs. K.V. Radhakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: AIR2006Mad333
S.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Poonammallee in A.S. No. 71 of 1990, dated 20-3-1991, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Poonammallee, in O.S. No. 217 of 1989, dated 31-1-1990, the second plaintiff has filed the above second appeal.2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:The suit property was purchased by the first plaintiff from Vembuli Naicker and others by executing a sale deed dated 12-9-1940. After the purchase, at the request of Palaya Naicker and Kanniappa Naicker, who are the sons of Vembuli Naicker, the first plaintiff leased out the suit property to them for a period of two years and for the rent of 5 annas per month by executing a lease deed dated 14-9-1940. However, as the said Palaya Naicker and Kanniappa Naicker surrendered the suit property before the completion of the lease period, at the request of the first defendant Kannammal, who is ...
Suryachakra Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director M. L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ1146
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question posed before this Court in the above batch of writ appeals and writ petitions is as to whether Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003, namely, Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 is valid or not?2. When the batch of writ petitions by the consumers, either individually or by Association or by Corporate Sectors have been filed before the learned single Judge, questioning the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003, the learned single Judge by the order dated 21.10.2003 dismissed those writ petitions holding that the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 is valid.3. The above batch of writ appeals have been filed before this Division Bench challenging the said common order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing those writ petitions in W.P. No. 17223 etc. of 2003. Apart from these writ appeals, a number of writ petitions questioning the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 have also been listed before this Division Bench for disposal.4...
Managing Director, Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Vs. Chinnang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC149
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation, Villupuram ('the transport Corporation'), aggrieved by the common award dated 16.9.1997 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Court, Tiruvannamalai) ('the Tribunal') in M.C.O.P. Nos. 466 and 527 of 1995, has preferred the above civil miscellaneous appeals.2. In respect of death of one Kannan in a motor accident on 20.2.1995, his parents, brother and sisters have filed M.C.O.P. No. 466 of 1995 and his wife and minor children have filed M.C.O.P. No. 527 of 1995 before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 7,50,000 and Rs. 7,00,000 respectively.3. According to respondents-claimants in both the appeals, when the deceased Kannan was walking along Anna Salai in Tiruvannamalai, he was dashed by a bus bearing registration No. TN 32-0245 belonging to the transport Corporation which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and in the said accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. It is the...
Sri Narendra Raja Textiles Ltd., P. Vadugapalayam Vs. S. Aruchamy and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: [2006(111)FLR980]; (2006)IIILLJ847Mad; (2006)3MLJ905
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Petitioner seeks to quash the award dated 27.1.1998 in I.D. No. 132 of 1996, passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein.2. The first respondent was appointed as Workman in the Spinning Department of the petitioner Textiles Limited and for the misconduct committed by him, the management issued three charge memos on 25.10.1994 , 15.11.1994 and 2.5.1995 to the effect that the first respondent was negligent in carrying out the work; misbehaviour with the superiors; trespass and unauthorised search of records in the Supervisor's room. The last two charge memos were issued while the enquiry in respect of the first charge was pending. An enquiry was conducted in respect of all the three charge memos and in the enquiry it was found that all the three charges are proved and consequently the first respondent was dismissed by the management on 1.1.1996. The said dismissal order was challenged in I.D. No. 132 of 1996 and the Labour Court a...
Nuclear Power Corporation and the Chief Superintendent, Madras Atomic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ279
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. These writ petitions challenge the orders dated 24-7-1998 and 16-6-1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in R.A. No. 10 of 1998 in O.A. No. 1488 of 1993 and O.A. No. 1095 of 19 94 passed respectively.2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as under: Department of Atomic Energy, Madras Atomic Power Project, a Government of India undertaking, invited applictions for the post of ' Stipendiary Trainees' under various categories of employment. Such advertisements were issued in the years 1980, 1982 and 1983. Several candiates were selected and engaged as 'Stipendiary Trainess' on consolidated monthly pay. After successful completion of the training period, the trainess were absorbed and appointed in the regular post, viz. Tradesman-B, carrying the regular time scale of pay, and they were also given one or two increments based on their performance during the training period.The Government of India, Depa...
K. Jeyagopal and anr. Vs. Nachiammai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: IV(2006)ACC458
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Challenging the award dated 23.9.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge, Salem)('the Tribunal') in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1635 of 1995, the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company, have preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. For the death of the deceased-Kannappan, the respondents herein who were the petitioners before the Tribunal filed M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 1635 of 1995 seeking a compensation of Rs. 12,00,000. It is their case that on 12.12.1994, when their son Kannappan, along with three others, travelled in an Ambassador car bearing Registration No. TN-27-5274 from Athur to Sabarimala. On that fateful day, at 3.05 a.m., when the car was nearing Ammaiyanaickanoor in the Dindigul-Madurai Road, its driver, with a view to make way for the vehicle coming in the opposite direction, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, lost control of the car and collided against a bridge and in that accident, their son Kannappan susta...
Thanjai Agro Traders Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
Reported in: (2009)20VST508(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This petitioner filed writ petition challenging the correctness of the pre-assessment notice issued by the second respondent in TNGST 3961240/2004-05 dated March 24, 2006 calling upon the petitioner to file objections, if any against the proposal with relevant records so as to enable the respondent to pass assessment order for the assessment year 2004-05. Due reply has been submitted by the petitioner to the proposal notice.2. It is the further case of the petitioner that while that being so, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the first respondent-Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by his proceedings dated May 12, 2006 issued a clarification that the hybrid cotton seed is taxable at four per cent under entry No. 6(iii), Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and hybrid sunflower seed is taxable at four per cent under entry No. 6(ix), Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.3. In view of the clarificatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »