Chennai Court September 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.
S. Devakadaksham Vs. the District Educational Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1580
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. All these writ appeals are filed by the teaching/non-teaching staff of recognized private schools, which were sanctioned grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1991/1.6.1994.2. In short, the grievance of the appellants is that after the sanction of grant-in aid to their schools and the sanction of the posts held by them, the services rendered by them prior to the date of sanction of grant-in aid and the sanction of the posts, were directed to be counted only for the purpose of promotion. But following a Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 18, Education, Science and Technology (T2) Department, dated 9.1.1997, passed in favour of one individual by name M.Jayaraj, the appellants were also granted the benefit of counting the past services for the purpose of pay fixation and pension. However, by a later order in G.O.Ms. No. 314, School Education (T2) Department, dated 12.11.1999, the said benefit of counting the past services, for the purpose of pay fixation and pension, was...
A.S. Hameed, Sole Proprietor, No. 10 A.S. Photo Beedi Company and No. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: LC2007(1)195; 2007(34)PTC578(Mad)
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The appellants, whose application for registration of a trade mark, in Class 34 in respect of beedies, was rejected by the Registrar of Trade Marks and whose regular appeal in T.M.A. No. 2 of 1996 also got dismissed by the learned Judge of this Court, have filed the above Trade Mark Second Appeal.2. The brief facts, leading to the above appeal are as follows:(a) On 13-9-1982, the appellants submitted an application for registration of a trade mark, in respect of beedies marketed by them, known as ' No. 10, A.S. Photo Beedi' with the photo of a Boy printed in the centre and No. 10 displayed on all four corners of a label. The appellants claimed user of the mark from 15-9-1974.(b) After the release of the advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal on 16-7-1989, the respondents 1 and 2 served notice of opposition on 28.8.1989 on the ground that they are the proprietors of a registered trade mark containing numeral 10, in respect of the same class of goods namely bee...
Dr. C. Chendroyaperumal Vs. National Institute of Port, Management Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ989
V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. The appellant, whose challenge to an order of termination was rejected by the learned Judge in the writ petition, is before us in this appeal.2. The facts leading to the above appeal are as follows:a) The appellant was appointed as a Faculty in Economics in the 1st respondent institute in July 1989 and after completion of probation, he executed an agreement to serve the Institute for 2 years. In 1992 he was sent for a training programme to U.K., and after his return, he executed another agreement to serve the Institute for a period of 3 years.b) On 17-11-1994, he applied for earned leave for 7 days on the ground that his mother was sick. But subsequently, the leave was sought to be extended from 13-12-1994 till 12-1-1995 on the ground that his sister and brother-in-law were involved in an accident. But the Institute sanctioned leave only upto 31-12-1994 and advised him to join duty on 2-1-1995 on the ground that he was required to complete a research assignmen...
Bank of India, Kurichi Industrial Estate Branch, Rep. by Its Chief Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: IV(2007)BC149; (2007)1CompLJ292(Mad); (2006)4MLJ914
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. 1. I.A. No. 1194/2005 in O.S.349/2005 and I.A. No. 1195/2005 in O.S. No. 350/2005 have been filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC with a prayer to reject the plaint on the ground that under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), (herein after be mentioned as SRFAESI Act), the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Both IAs have been dismissed by the learned District Munsif of Pollachi. Hence, the revisions have been filed by the Defendant in both the suit.2. The substantial question of law to be decided in both the CRPs is whether the plaints in O.S. 349/05 and O.S. 350/05 are liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for the reasons stated in the memorandum of revision in both the revision petitions.3. The Point:3(1) O.S. No. 350/2005 (relating to CRP.PD.391/2006) has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the notice dat...
S. Duraikannu Vs. the Managing Director, P.L. Haulwal Trailers Limited ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2006
Reported in: [2007(112)FLR800]; (2007)IILLJ87Mad
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in respect of the award passed in I.D. No. 27 of 1999 dated 30.04.2002 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all other consequential benefits including back wages, service benefit, etc., with retrospective effect from 19.12.1997, the date on which the petitioner was terminated from service.2. The petitioner was employed as fitter-semi skilled worker in the first respondent and on 26.07.1995, the management has issued a charge memo alleging some misconduct against him and pending disciplinary enquiry, he was placed under suspension. The Management appointed an enquiry officer, who, after completion of enquiry submitted his report to the Management stating that the charges against the petitioner were proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the Management has sent a...
Miss A. Karthiga, Minor, Rep. by Mother and Guardian Mrs. Pushpalatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ1780
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The question raised in this writ petition, we are informed, has not been raised till now and that is, whether the autonomy of the private unaided professional institutions includes the right to fix a higher minimum marks to be obtained in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible to write the Common Entrance Test.2. Imparting instruction and giving education was philanthropy 'a pious duty' in the past, and later a service. In recent times, it has developed into a business and now it stands recognized as an industry. A sizeable amount of litigation centres around medical education. The national wealth of available seats is scarce while the aspirants, desirous of sharing such wealth, are numerous. Every attempt at laying down criteria for choosing the more deserving out of the several aspirants is subjected to challenge before the constitutional courts of the country - vide State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thirthani : AIR2003SC2952 . Now, it is the turn of t...
The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Fagun Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: 2007(1)CTC13; (2006)205CTR(Mad)225; [2006]286ITR297(Mad); (2006)4MLJ836
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), Madras, 'D' Bench referred the matter under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, as per the direction of this Court in T.C.P. Nos.202 to 205/97 dated 08.09.1998, for opinion of this Court.2. The facts leading to the above tax cases are as under: i)The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. It is a closely held company. The relevant assessment years are 1984-85 and 1985-86 and the corresponding valuation dates are 31.03.1984 and 31.03.1985. The issue involved in these appeals relate to the assessment of multi storeyed building belonging to the assessee company. The property is at No.26, Commander-in-Chief Road, Chennai consisting of land to an extent of 26.65 grounds with a six storeyed building on a built-up area of 469 Sq.M. There is also another old building of 818 Sq.M. at the back. Of the total area of 26.65 grounds, an extent of 10.52 grounds had...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Muthukarupan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2006
Reported in: (2006)206CTR(Mad)231; [2007]290ITR154(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above tax case appeals are directed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9.12.2005 in I.T.A. Nos. 219/Mds/2003, 220/Mds/2003 and 221/Mds/2003 for the assessment years 1992-93, 1994-95 and 1996-97 respectively, raising the following substantial questions of law:(i) Merely because as on the date of the determination of the rental value of the assessee who is one of the co-sharers of the property the rental income returned by the other co-owners were interfered with by the Department could be a ground for extending the benefit of legality to the assessee? and(ii) In commercial business business activity, when payments were made should it be apportioned to the previous loans outstanding or to the subsequent ones?While the first substantial question of law deals with the lease rent, the second substantial question of law deals with the interest attributable to loans.2. The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant for the disposal of the...
Chanda Softy Ice Cream a partnership concern rep. by Its Partner, Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: LC2007(1)11; (2006)4MLJ1769; 2006(33)PTC703(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent. Since the facts and circumstances in which the Original Applications had been filed being the same both the above mentioned appeals are taken up for hearing and a Common Order is passed.2. The Original Side Appeal Nos. 69 of 2001 and 70 of 2001, have been filed by the appellants herein, against the Order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 29.01.2001, made in Original Application Nos. 579 of 1999 and 580 of 1999 in C.S. No. 718 of 1999.3. The plaintiffs in the suit are the respondents in the present appeals.The respondents herein namely, 'MARS' Incorporated and Milky Way 'Galaxy' of ice creams had filed a Civil Suit in C.S. No. 718 of 1999 under the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court praying for a Judgment and a Decree on the following terms:a) Granting a perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their partners, heirs, legal representatives, successors in...
Ashok Vs. the Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-2006
Reported in: (2006)4MLJ714
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals preferred by one Ashok viz., the 10th respondent before the Special Judge, T.N.P.I.D. Act, Chennai ('Tribunal'), are directed against the orders dated 22.07.2005 passed by the Tribunal in I.A. Nos.224 and 225/2004 in O.A. Nos. nil, whereby the Tribunal condoned the delay of 308 days and 276 days respectively, in filing the Original Applications and allowed the petitions filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.2. The Competent Authority and Additional Commissioner (Cinema & Irrigation) Land Administration Department, Chepauk, Chennai 5 filed I.A. Nos. 224 and 225 of 2004 before the Tribunal contending that G.O. Ms. Nos.61 and 123 Home (Courts IIA) Department dated 21.01.2002 and 13.02.2002 were received on 28.01.20025 and 28.02.2002 respectively and steps were being taken to enquire into the matter and to file O.As. before the Tribunal within the prescribed time of thirty days under Section 4(4) of the T.N.P.I.D. Act, 1997 ('...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »