Chennai Court November 2007 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.
Terry Gold India Limited, Rep. by Its Joint Managing Director, Mr. D. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1329; [2008]1MLJCrl782
ORDERS. Palanivelu, J.1. While Criminal O.P. No. 23367 of 2006 has been filed praying for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 6010 of 2005 pending on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, Criminal O.P. No. 1945 of 2007 is for the similar relief with regard to C.C. No. 14666 of 2006, pending on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.2. Since both the petitions involve an identical issue as also the parties are same, a common order is being passed.3. Learned Counsel have advanced arguments for both the petitions and placed their contentions on the same set of legal positions.4. The gist of the averments in C.C. No. 6010 of 2005 (Criminal O.P. No. 23367 of 2006) is as under:4.1. First petitioner/accused, represented by second and third petitioners/accused, misled the respondent/complainant by making false representations with a dishonest intention and inducing the respondent to provide lease finance facility for the machineries. On 31.07.199...
The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Adi Dravidar Welfare Vs. Sorn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-2007
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC171
S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. This appeal in A.S. No. 532 of 1996, A.S. No. 416 of 1996 and Cross Objection in Cross. Objection No. 70 of 1998 are arising out of the same award, passed in L.A.O.P. No. 121 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam.2. The appeal in A.S. No. 532 of 1996 has been preferred by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Vridachalam. The first claimant in the award proceeding has preferred the appeal in A.S. No. 416 of 1996 and the second claimant has preferred Cross Objection in Cross Obj. No. 70 of 1998. 3. It is not in dispute that the land in R.S. No. 24/3 measuring an extent of 2.63 acres and in R.S. No. 24/6 measuring an extent of 1.37 acres in Budhamur Village, Vridhachalam was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Special Tahsildar (ADW), Vridhachalam, for the purpose of providing house sites for houseless barbers and dhobies, for which Section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred as t...
Engineers Associates, Mechanical Engineers Vs. J. Parvathi and J. Reva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC835; 2008(1)MhLj764
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the tenant before the learned rent controller, XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai in RCOP No. 2227 of 1994. The RCOP No. 2227 of 1994 was filed for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition mentioned property and that the monthly fair rent was fixed at Rs. 1864/- per month from the date of filing of the petition by the learned rent controller.2. The tenant/petitioner/appellant preferred an appeal in RCA. No. 04/1997 as against the order dated 02.4.1996 passed by the learned Rent Controller, XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and the same is pending adjudication before the learned appellate authority, VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai.3. Pending RCA No. 04 of 1997, the tenant/petitioner/appellant filed M.P. No. 90 of 2001 before the appellate authority praying for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the area of the petition premises under the occupation of the petitioner/ten...
V.S. Boys Higher Secondary School Rep. by Its Manager, V.T. Somasundar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ855
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1994 made in O.S. No. 34 of 1989 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, the defendants in the suit have preferred this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:It is not in dispute that the deceased Loganathan who is the son of the respondents herein aged about 13 years was a student in the appellants' school, studying VIII standard. On the fateful day, i.e., on 11.03.1987, the deceased Loganathan had gone to the school, his class teacher having been on leave and out of eight periods per day, for the last two periods no substitute teacher was posted to handle the class. Though, it had been informed that the seventh period would be handled by Tamil Teacher, according to the respondents/plaintiffs, even the said Teacher did not attend the class. The third appellant who is the Head Master of the school, had not posted any substitute Teacher to handle the class. However, the boys were per...
Moosa Sulaiman Vs. E.i.D. Parry Staff Gratuity Fund by Trustees,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ350
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 24.02.1993 made in O.S. No. 5490 of 1989 on the file XVII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.2. It is not in dispute that the appellant / plaintiff had been an employee under the respondents and voluntarily retired from service on 17.09.1985 and that he was paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards gratuity. He made a representation to the respondents to pay additional gratuity, since, he had served for about 30 years in respondent's company, but the same was negatived by the respondents. Hence, the appellant has filed the suit, seeking a direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 45,000/- as additional gratuity together with interest. 3. Mrs. Sheila Jayaprakash, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the Trust Deed, marked as Ex.B.1, at paragraph No. 11 (a), where it has been stipulated as follows:The Gratuity will be paid at the rate of half of one month's avera...
V. Shanthi Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ598
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. I have heard Ms. V. Pushpa, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Vaidyanathan, learned Counsel representing the respondents and have perused the records.2. The petitioner is the daughter of one P.Veeran, Wireman, employed in Natham West, Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle. Unfortunately, he passed away on 30.12.1998 leaving behind his wife and the petitioner daughter. The petitioner's mother Karpagavalli applied for employment assistance and sent a requisition on 05.4.2001. But she was informed that since she was not qualified and did not have the minimum educational qualification, she cannot be granted any employment. Thereafter, being the daughter of the deceased, the petitioner applied for employment under the Employment Assistance Scheme. In her application, she had stated that though she was married, she was deserted by her husband and, therefore, she is eligible for getting the employment under the Employment Assistance Scheme.3. By ...
Chiranjeevi Wind Energy Ltd. Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: 2008BusLR138(NULL)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for a certiorarified mandamus challenging the proceedings of the respondent herein dated 15.12.2006 in and by which the petitioner has been invited to pay particular attention to sections IIB and III which are serious issues and require review of documentation and repetition of verification of safety and function tests and asking the petitioner to arrange to send the clarifications/information at the earliest and for consequential direction to include the petitioner's name in the revised list of Models and Manufacturers of Wind Electric Generators/Wind Turbines Equipment issued quarterly.2. The petitioner's case, as culled out from its affidavit, is as under:a. The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacture of wind energy equipments popularly known as Wind Mills, having its factory at Pondicherry, which includes manufacture, erection and commission and later maintenance of such wind mills or power generators. The ISO 90...
Asian Paints India Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: 2008(227)ELT192(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 5.6.2000 made in W.P. Nos. 12823 to 12825 of 1990.2. In the writ petitions a notification issued in No. 177/86-WE dated 1st March 1986 to the extent that it restricts the Modvat credit of duty to only certain inputs as listed in column 2 of the table annexed to the notification was sought to be declared as ultra vires of Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the premise that under Rule 57-A the legislature has conferred power on the Central Government only to specify the final products and specified duty. In other words Rule 57-A nowhere uses the words 'as may be specified' in relation to 'inputs' and the Central Government has not empowered its delegate to specify the inputs and thereby restrict the list of inputs, regarding which the credit may be availed of, if duty is paid on the inputs. According to the appellant, the Central Government has exceeded its power and juris...
Backiasamy K.P. Vs. Appellate Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: (2008)ILLJ575Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the employee of the third respondent Mill challenging the order dated December 8, 2000 passed by the first respondent appellate authority in Gratuity Appeal No. 4 of 2000 confirming the order of the second respondent controlling authority dated February 28. 2000 made in Gratuity Application No. 17 of 1999.2. The petitioner, an employee of the third respondent Mill resigned from the service on August 20, 1998 after completing 14 years of service. He filed an application dated May 31, 1999 claiming payment of gratuity. He gave a notice dated November 20, 1998 to the third respondent Management stating that his gratuity was paid only for a period of 8 years leaving out his 6 years service. The said application was taken on file as G.A. No. 17 of 1999.3. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner ought to have filed an application within 90 days from October 5, 1998 but it was filed after 236 days. Therefo...
K.P. Backiasamy Vs. Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR977]
K. Chandru, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the employee of the third respondent Mill challenging the order dated December 8, 2000 passed by the first respondent appellate authority in Gratuity Appeal No. 4 of 2000 confirming the order of the second respondent controlling authority dated February 28, 2000 made in Gratuity Application No. 17 of 1999.The petitioner, an employee of the third respondent Mill resigned from the service on August 20, 1998 after completing 14 years of service. He filed an application dated May 31, 1999 claiming payment of gratuity. He gave a notice dated November 20, 1998 to the third respondent Management stating that his gratuity was paid only for a period of 8 years leaving out his 6 years service. The Said application was taken on file as G.A. No. 17 of 1999.2. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner ought to have filed an application within 90 days from October 5, 1998 but it was filed after 236 days. Therefore, it i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »