Chennai Court March 2007 Judgments
Peter Ramesh Kumar Vs. Executive Director, Marshalls Power and Communi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: [2007(114)FLR1167]; (2007)IILLJ742Mad
K. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner, a practicing lawyer, has filed the present writ petition against the order of the Labour Court dated June 20, 2002 made in Claim Petition No. 45/1999.2. The petitioner made certain claims against the respondents 1 and 2 claiming that he is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 34,300/- towards conveyance allowance, travelling allowance and three months notice pay. According to the petitioner, he was engaged for a sum of Rs. 4,500/- per month plus conveyance reimbursement of Rs. 700/- as per Exhibit P-1 agreement marked before the Labour Court. In the agreement, the petitioner was described as 'Consultant' of the Company for a period of 11 months.3. In the counter statement filed on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, they took the stand that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, T.D. Act') and he can only be a professional and no amount is due to be paid to him.4. The Labour Court recorded ...
Tag this Judgment!S.B. Steels, Rep. by Its Partner, Shanthi Tantia Vs. the Collector of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(212)ELT316(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 8353 of 1991 dated 18.02.1999.2. The brief facts arising out of this Writ Appeal are as under:The appellant is a partnership firm, having its Office at Coimbatore. The petitioner firm was manufacturing M.S.Bars, M.S.Angles, M.S.Plates classified under sub-headings 7209.90, 7210.10 and 7209.10 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioner was not manufacturing goods during the relevant period, that attracted excise duty and hence there is no need for the appellant to obtain the Excise License. On 01.04.1987, the petitioner leased out its plant, machinery and building to M/s.Modern Steel Industries, Coimbatore for manufacture of the above items. The said lease period was for a period of three years and the said period came to an end on 01.04.1990. On the expiry of the said period of lease, the lessee M/s.Modern Steel Industries surrendered the pos...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeswari, Sekar and Rajendran Vs. K.M. Kumarasamy, Ravichandran and M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ442
J.A.K. Sampath Kumar, J.1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 2.9.2006 made in O.S. No. 612/2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1)Coimbatore in and by which the learned District Judge after analysing the evidence found that the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim and accordingly decreed the suit.2. For convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed in the Original Suit. The brief facts of the case are as follows:3. Plaintiff states as follows:3.1. The first defendant is the widow and defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of one Moses Thiagarajan, since deceased. They have inherited the estate of Moses Thiagarajan. The suit property had belonged to one Elisabeth, wife of Draviam, who is the mother of Moses Thiagarajan and she is also dead. While alive, she had bequeathed it under a will dated 4.6.1984 to Moses Thiagarajan. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 5 are the legal representatives-in-interest of Moses Thyagarajan in respect of t...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sowrirajan Vs. T. Kala, T. Ravichandran (Minor), T. Sivasankari (Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1112
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. The above revision has been filed by the tenant under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order of Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of Rent Controller fixing a fair rent of Rs.7,146/- to the petitioner's premises under Section 4 of the Act.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above Revision are set-out below:The building in respect of which fair rent has been fixed is located at Door No. 36, Vathiyar Subbaraya Mudali Street, Saidapet, Chennai - 15. A school which is said to be in existence from 1929 is being run there. The landlord initiated Eviction Proceedings and the said Eviction Proceedings attained finality by the disposal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the tenant before the Apex Court. But in the meantime, land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Landlord challenged th...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Thiruvalleswarar Thirukkoil and P.S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ476
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P. No. 15527 of 2000 dated 31.3.2004 allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 5 herein. Respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition are appellants herein.2. Parties herein will be described as arrayed in the writ petition.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows.(a) The first petitioner Society is a registered Housing Society representing the residents of Jagadambigai Nagar, Sakthi Nagar and Thiruvalleeswarar Colony. The respondents 3 and 4 are the Executive Officer and Hereditary Trustees of Arulmigu Thiruvalleeswarar Thirukoil, an ancient temple at Padi in Madras. The temple owns considerable extent of lands comprised in S. No. 271, 303/1 to 4, 364/1 to 3 near the temple.(b) The trustees of the temple in the year 1968 decided to give the lands on lease to the individuals, who were desirous of constructing sup...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Balasubramanian, Rep. by His Duly Attested Power Agent P.R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad210; 2008(1)MhLj801
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed on behalf of Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian by his father, who is the attested power of attorney holder. First respondent is the wife of Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian. Respondents 2 and 3 are police officials. 2. Prayer is for a direction to the respondents to secure the daughter of Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian and Respondent No. 1. The marriage between Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian and Respondent No. 1 took place in India on 4.7.1999. Thereafter the couple lived in United States of America. The daughter was born on 26.3.2004. Respondent No. 1 has filed a petition for divorce in the year 2006 in the court of Pennsylvania in United States of America. Respondent No. 1 has also filed a custody petition for the custody of the daughter. Even after filing of such proceedings for divorce, the husband and wife were residing in the same house. On 11.1.2007 the husband found that his wife - Respondent No. 1 and the daughter - the alleg...
Tag this Judgment!A.J. Baskaran Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Villupuram Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ405
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. The writ petitioner in W.P. No. 15633 of 2001 has preferred W.A. No. 3064 of 2004 against the portion of the order dated 13.10.2001 directing the writ petitioner to pay the licence fee for a period of three months from 24.1.2001 to 24.4.2001.2. The respondent/Transport Corporation in W.P. No. 15633 of 2001 challenged the order of the learned single Judge directing refund of the balance amount, which was forfeited.3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred according to their ranks as in the writ petition.4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeals are as follows.(i) The writ petitioner was the successful bidder in respect of shop No. 5 constructed in road side Motel complex in Mamandur, Maduranthakam Taluk. The auction was conducted by the respondent/Transport Corporation and on negotiation, the rental amount was fixed as Rs.1,45,000/- per month. Petitioner deposited Rs.2.50 lakhs on the auction date i.e, on 24.6.2000 an...
Tag this Judgment!D. Nirmala Devi Vs. V.M. Dhanasekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad330; (2007)4MLJ1263
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 7.8.2006 made in I.A.No: 269 of 2005 in H.M.O.P. No. 165 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode.2. The revision petitioner was married to the respondent on 16.3.2000 at Erode as per the Hindu customary rites. According to the petitioner, her father spent nearly a Crore of rupees towards the expenses for the marriage and the dowry demanded on the side of the respondent. The petitioner alleges that the respondent and his parents always harassed the petitioner both physically and mentally. In such circumstances, the respondent initiated proceedings for divorce on the ground of cruelty in HMOP NO.165 of 2005 before the learned Prl.Subordinate Judge, Erode, which, the petitioner/wife is resisting.3. While that being so, the petitioner joined a Post Graduate Course in Management with Sathyabama University, Jeppiar Education Trust, Chennai where she is doing her first year MBA and...
Tag this Judgment!Manuel Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ218
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram made in I.A. No. 176 of 2004 in A.S.S.R. No. 5385 of 2004 dated 12.04.2005.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:Originally, the petitioner had filed O.S. No. 234 of 1993 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram against the respondents herein for declaration of title and for permanent injunction and other reliefs with reference to the suit schedule properties. The said suit was decreed with costs on 21.04.1997.3. It is not in dispute that the decree in E.P. No. 142 of 2000 for attachment of the immoveable properties of the respondents for realiasation of the cost was also filed. It appears that the cost was paid during the pendency of the said E.P. It is also not in dispute that after 7 years and 7 months from the date of decree and only after three years and three months from the date of termination of the E.P., the r...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnarayanan Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST338(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent herein to furnish the details that were called for by the petitioner as per the petitioner's representation dated February 13, 2007.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of textiles at Coimbatore and registered dealer under the respondent both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 2002-03, the petitioner has reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 11,00,83,102 and Rs. 11,00,83,102 respectively by way of monthly return in form A1. The respondent has issued a notice on January 31, 2007 wherein it is alleged that on July 08, 2004 the petitioner's place of business was inspected by the enforcement wing officials and they have sent a report to the effect that despatches to Kerala depot were immediately sold to Coimbatore and Erode dealers, that the sale bills bear the seal of STO, Velandevalam in Kera...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »