Chennai Court September 2006 Judgments
District Forest Officer, Madurai Division Vs. P. Ganesan (Died) and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-2006
Reported in: 2007ACJ1521; [2007(112)FLR561]; (2006)4MLJ1653
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to quash the order of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai in W.C. No. 67/91, dated 15.03.1994.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition as stated in the affidavit are that the first respondent was appointed as a forest guard on 22.10.1979 and he worked as such till 07.03.1986. While he was working as forest guard in Myladumparai beat of Gandamanur Range of Madurai Division from 27.01.1986, he applied for medical leave on 08.03.1986 & 09.03.1986, and, thereafter, he extended his leave. The petitioner referred his case to the Medical Board, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and on 11.07.1986, the Medical Board has examined him and gave a certificate stating that the first respondent was suffering from Tuberculosus Meningitis and Physically Handicapped and also having defect in vision. The first respondent again applied for further medical leave upto 22.09.1987 and the Medical Board again ex...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. K. Rajayyan Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Human Reso ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1904
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner, a well-known Professor of History even at the age of 72 years with indomitable urge and enthusiasm has come up with the present writ petition in public interest with a prayer seeking for suitable recognition by the authorities concerned to accord due recognition to the 1800 uprising against the British rule in South India and he wants that even to be declared as the First War of Independence. The fire with which the petitioner has come forward with the present petition is completely understandable. By doing so, the petitioner has only discharged his Fundamental Duties enshrined in Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, more particularly, Articles 51-A (b) and (h) found in that Article.2. The petitioner himself has summarized the significance of the South Indian Rebellion at page 354 of his text book titled as 'South Indian Rebellion (1800 - 1801) - The First War of Independence' published by Ratna Publications, Madurai, Second Edition, 2000 in ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Venkatramani Vs. Lic Housing Finance Limited, Rep. by Its Authorise ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: [2007]135CompCas514(Mad); [2007]78SCL222(Mad)
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. With the consent of either counsel, the main writ petitions themselves have been taken up for final disposal.2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the Demand Notices issued by the' ' financial institutions ' 'under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act 54 of 2002) (in short 'SARFAESI Act'). Since common questions of law have been raised in all these writ petitions, they are all disposed of by this common order.3. These writ petitions have been filed either by the borrowers/debtors of the' ' financial institutions ' 'or the purchasers from the debtors of the financial institution, to whom the' ' financial institutions ' 'have marked a copy of the Demand Notice, while sending the demand notices to the original creditors; or by the guarantors.4. While W.P.Nos.34022 of 2005, 35859 of 2005, 40817 of 2005 have been filed by the guarantors, W.P.Nos.124...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Agencie Rep. by Its Branch Manager Vs. Dev Fastners Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1623
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 13.8.2002, passed in M.P. No. 189/2002 in Suit No. 517/2000 on the file of the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2. The plaintiff in Suit No. 517/2000 on the file of the IX Small Causes Court, Chennai is the revision petitioner.3. The suit was filed in the name of the plaintiff, namely, M/s.Vijaya Agencies represented by its Branch Manager for a judgment and decree directing the respondent/defendant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 10,853/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.4. M.P. No. 189/2002 was filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Presidential Small Causes Court Act to permit the revision petitioner/plaintiff to substitute the word 'partner' in the place of Branch Manager, in all the places of the plaint and in the verification clause of the plaint as 'A.R. Balakrishnan, partner' in the place of 'K. Baskaran the Branch Manager.'5. The reasons ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ragavachari Vs. V.S. Narayanan Director and Company Secretary S and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-2006
Reported in: [2007]136CompCas739(Mad); (2006)4MLJ1632
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2002, passed in O.P. No. 788/1999 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Chennai.2. The complainant in O.P. No. 788/1999 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Chennai, is the revision petitioner. 3. The complainant filed O.P. No. 788/1999 for directing the respondents/opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest and compensation and costs. On 25.7.2000 the consumer forum directed the respondents/opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at 18% with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and with a cost of Rs. 500/- Thereafter the complainant filed an Execution Petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act to issue arrest warrant. But the execution petition was returned with an endorsement that already execution petition Nos. 96/2000 and 71/2001 were closed as the reference has been re...
Tag this Judgment!Ananya Knitting Company Vs. Joint Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: 2007(211)ELT378(Mad)
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. Identical issue is involved in the above writ petitions. Hence, common order is pronounced.2. The petitioner is manufacturer of knit fabrics.3. By paying excise and customs duty, the petitioner is importing raw materials for manufacture of fabrics.4. The admitted fact is that the petitioner imported hangers and the case of petitioner is, it is to use as a integral part of the garment to sell to the foreign buyer.5. The petitioner did not pay the custom duty on those imported hangers.6. The contention of the petitioner is that they applied for Note (II) of the Drawback under Sl. No. 2704 of the schedule of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rule, 1971 by claiming that the hangers were imported as one of the items as duty free under Quantity Based Advance License Scheme.7. The entire case of the petitioner is relied on the expression used in Note (II) 'embellishment' and claiming the relief. The prayer of the petitioner is that it is entitled to draw...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Venkatasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Mad)88
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. The present appeals in T.C. (A) Nos.67 & 68 of 2003 are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue against the order passed in I.T.A. Nos.100/Mds/97 and 325/Mds/99 dated 03.01.2003 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'A' Bench. On 17.10.2003, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following question of law. 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the admission fee and contribution to infrastructure development fund paid by the assessee to become a member of the stock exchange is a revenue expenditure? 2. The facts leading to the above question of law are as under: i)The assessee is a share-broker. The relevant assessment year are 1993-94 and 1994-95 and the corresponding accounting years ended on 31.03.1993 and 31.03.1994 respectively. For the assessment year 1993-94, the assessee filed Return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 1,20,340/-. Later, the a...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chirtrarasan Vs. the Inspector of (Sws) Central Industrial Security ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1817
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings Nos. V-11014/45/SZ/LC/ SWS/01/8520 dated 20.12.2001, affirming the order of the second respondent in proceedings No. V-11014/46/2001/L&R;(SZ) dated 28.08.2001, affirming the order of the third respondent in proceedings No. V-150014/1/Estt.I/NC/2001/6280 dated 02.07.2001 and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary benefits.2. According to the petitioner, on 25/26.10.2000, he was deployed for duty at Gate No. II in 'A' Coy. His duty hours were from 17.00 hours to 05.00 hours(12 hours duty). While he was performing his duty, at about 22.00 hours, the Assistant Commandant Mr. K.V.K. Sriram along with two other Assistant Commandants in civilian dress, came to the area, where he and others performed duties. They conducted check on the petitioner at the dut...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Suganthi, Prop. Veerappa Transport Vs. M. Palanivelu and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1374
D. Murugesan, J.1. The writ appeal raises the following two points:(1) Whether the variation granted, but not implemented, in respect of a stage carriage under Section 57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4/1939), as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 56/1969), is saved by the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 (Tamil Nadu Act 41/1992) after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act 27/2000) had come into force?(2) Whether in terms of Rule 208(d) read with Rule 163(b) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, the variation granted automatically deemed to be revoked, in case the permit holder fails to produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before the State Transport Authority within a period of four months from the date of variation?2. The facts that give rise to the above points may briefly be stated as follows:The appellant was a stage carriage permit holder for the bus MSQ 7297 ...
Tag this Judgment!Airports Authority of India, Rep. by the Airport Director Internationa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1088
ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. The above said writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the issue involved in these petitions is common. The controversy relates to the advertisement hoardings erected on the stretch of the National Highway No. 45 (NH-45), starting from Kathipara Junction to Pallavaram, which is running parallel to the Chennai Airport.2. W.P. No. 28384 of 2005 has been filed by the Airports Authority of India, International Airport Division, Chennai Airport, Chennai, to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of the writ directing the respondents therein to remove all the hoardings erected in the stretch of NH-45 from Kathipara Junction to Pallavaram, for ensuring the safety of Air Navigations in Chennai Airport, as per Article 28 of the Convention of International Civil Aviation and the Notification No. SO.988, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, dated 05.01.1988 read with Rule 65 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »