Chennai Court August 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.
M. Subbalakshmi, Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and the Chair ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ602
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records from the first respondent Labour Court relating to its order dated 21.10.2002 in I.A. No. 56 of 2001 in I.D. No. 146 of 1994 on the file of first respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to implement the award dated 16.06.2000 in I.D. No. 146 of 1994 by granting all benefits due to deceased Mookiah, to the legal heirs i.e. the petitioners, on the date of death of Mookiah on 14.2.2001 together with interest at 12% p.a. till the date of actual payment.2. The writ petition falls on narrow scope. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the workman Mookiah, who was dismissed from service on 31.08.1987, which was challenged by him by filing I.D. No. 146 of 1994 before the first respondent/labour Court, Tirunelveli. An ex parte award was passed on 16.06.2000 and the same was published in the Government gazette on 01.08.2000. It is ...
The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)-iv, Tamil Nadu Housing Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ565
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 08.07.200 2, made in W.P. No. 21128 of 2002, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)-IV, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme, Nandanam, Chennai-35, has filed the above Writ Appeal.2. Heard Mr. P.Wilson, learned Special Government Pleader for appellant and Mr. M.Rajaraman, learned Counsel for respondent.3. The respondent herein filed W.P. No. 21128 of 2002 for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)-IV, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme, Chennai-35, pertaining to his letter RC No. 3493/93/E2, dated 13.02.2002, in and by which, the said Officer informed her that though orders for re-determination of compensation had been passed on 01 .11.1995 and the compensation amount was also received from the requisitioning body, in view of the fact that as against the Judgement in LAOP No. 12 of 1989, the Government has filed appeal and the same is pe...
G.S. Gopalakrishnan, Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep., by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-2006
Reported in: 2006(4)CTC757; (2006)4MLJ65
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The question as to whether a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the name of a dead person is a nullity, falls for consideration in this appeal. 2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:Five persons by name M. Narasimha Reddy, G.S. Gopalakrishnan, Tmt. Rajamma, M. Krishnappa and L. Nachiappan jointly filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 7153 of 1997 praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to a notification issued under G.O.Ms. No. 130, Electronics, Science and Technology (C) Department dated 2.11.1988 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the 'Act') and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act under G.O.Ms. No. 941, Industries (SIF2) dated 18.12.1989 and the award No. 4 of 1991 dated 19.12.1991 of the second respondent and to quash all those proceedings in so far as they related to the land of an extent of ...
Maruthi Handling Equipments Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
Reported in: (2007)7VST261(Mad)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated July 13, 2006 in M. P. No. 2 of 2006 in W. P. No. 22311 of 2006 imposing certain pre-conditions for ordering the miscellaneous petition. As the order passed by the learned Judge is very short, the same is extracted below:Having regard to the peculiar nature of the case, this court is not satisfied that the seller is not conscious of the provisions of the terms which provides the seller to accept form XVII and the concessional rate of tax in such goods, which could be used as component parts, packing machinery, etc., but whereas in the present case, the seller might be aware that the trolleys sold cannot be used as component parts or packing machinery or the like stated under Section 3(3). Hence the entire blame cannot be shifted to the purchaser. However, this is a prima facie opinion and the case has to be decided on merits at the time of final disposal.2. In order to safeguard the interest...
Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. Rep. by Its Power Agent Anjay Sharma Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ924
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 26.10.2004 passed in I.A. No. 265/2004 in O.S. No. 13/2002 on the file of the District Munsif, Tambaram.2. The 3rd defendant in the suit is the Revision Petitioner herein.3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed O.S. No. 13/2002 to declare that the sale deed executed by the 1st defendant (5th respondent herein) to and in favour of the 3rd defendant (Revision Petitioner) on 31.10.2001 in respect of the suit schedule property as null and void and also for consequential injunction. The Revision Petitioner as 3rd defendant has filed I.A. No. 265/2004 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adjudicate on the two issues of limitation and valuation as preliminary issues and dismiss the suit with costs. The trial court by order dated 26.10.2004 dismissed I.A. No. 265/2004 and aggrieved by the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.4. Heard t...
Ranganayaki and anr. Vs. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: II(2007)ACC217
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No. V, Coimbatore at Tirupur dated 10th December, 2003 made in M.C.O.P. No. 264 of 2001, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle in question have filed this appeal.2. In respect of death of one Gopinath in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 18th February, 2001, the respondents herein/claimants, prayed for a compensation of a sum of Rs. 5 lacs. The Tribunal, based on the materials placed passed an award for a sum of Rs. 3,82,000 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. Questioning the same, present appeal has been filed.3. Even at the stage of admission, the respondents are represented by Counsel. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as respondents.4. At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants fairly stated that they are aggrieved only with regard to quantum of compensation determined by the Tribuna...
Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Mayilathal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: I(2007)ACC698
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. V), Coimbatore at Tirupur in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 656 of 2003 dated 15th February, 2006, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Coimbatore, has filed the present appeal.2. In respect of the death of one Mandhiri Naicker in a road accident that took place on 25th April, 2003, the respondents herein prayed for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, passed an award for a sum of Rs. 1,55,000 with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till ttMate^Tdeposit. Questioning the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.3. The respondents are represented by Counsel.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents.5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the deceased met with an accident due to his own fault by coming out of the bus, whe...
Sree Murugan Engineering Products, Rep. by Its Partner A. Muruganandha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: [2006]148STC413(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore and quash his proceedings dated 30.06.2006, whereby assessment for the assessment year 2003-04 has been framed in respect of the petitioner determining the tax due in a sum of Rs. 2,94,561/- and surcharge in a sum of Rs. 14,726/- resale tax due in a sum of Rs. 38,201/- and further levied penalty under Section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act in a sum of Rs. 42,907/-. That order is canvassed before this Court on the ground that a turnover in a sum of Rs. 14,85,636/- in respect of sale is covered by Form XVII. As the purchasing dealer has contravened the condition of Form XVII, tax and penalty could be imposed in respect of that turnover only against the purchasing dealer and not against the petitioner, who is the selling dealer, as per the section.2. In order to sustain...
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited Represented by Its Company Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1513
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by Neyveli Lignite Corporation challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge, Vridhachalam made in Arbitration O.P. No. 824 of 1996 dated 18.06.1997 filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 30 of the Act confirming the Award dated 10.11.1992 passed by the Arbitrator, the second respondent herein.2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the Arbitration O.P. before the learned Sub-Judge.3. According to the petitioner Company, it is a public sector enterprise and its activities are mining of lignite, generation of electricity and various other by-products. There was a need for construction of an air-strip at Neyveli Township and an advertisement was issued by the petitioner in the newspapers on 16.07.1986 calling for tenders from the general public. The said advertisement carried all the details and terms and...
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary Higher Education and the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-2006
Reported in: (2006)3MLJ1037
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since all these matters are interlinked; the question raised and the issue involved are one and the same; they are being disposed of by the following Common Judgment. 2. The above writ appeals are by the State against the interim orders/interim directions of the learned Single Judge. Since we are taking up the main writ petitions themselves for disposal, there is no need to go into the correctness or otherwise of the interim orders which are the subject matter of the writ appeals. 3. The writ petitioners/Educational Trusts are running Engineering Colleges, after getting proper approval from the All India Council for Technical Education ('AICTE' in short). In some of the Writ Petitions, proviso to Section 5(ac) of the Anna University Act, 1978, is challenged. Some of the petitioners are seeking direction to grant provisional affiliation while others seek direction for inclusion of their colleges in the Single Window System. 4. It is the common case of the petitioners...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »