Chennai Court April 2007 Judgments
M. Mani Vs. Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and the Pre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: (2007)IIILLJ282Mad
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. These writ appeals have been filed, challenging the common order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 22978 of 2001 and 5895 of 1998, in and by which, the awards passed by the Labour Court on two different dates were quashed and the matters were ordered to be remitted back to the said court, with a direction to consider the same afresh.2. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:The appellant in W.A. No. 3789 of 2003, M. Mani is the second respondent in W.P. No. 22978 of 2001 and was employed as driver under the first respondent herein, Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipet. The appellant in W.A. No. 3790 of 2003, T.A.Mathivanan is the second respondent in the connected W.P. No. 5895 of 1998, who was also employed as driver under the first respondent, Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited, Ranipet and after his demise, his Legal Representatives were impleaded as appellants 2 to 5 in the said writ appeal.3. In these writ appeals, for the sake of conven...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Muthammal Transports Vs. P. Swathanthirarajan and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC389
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.09.2005, made in W.P. No. 8572 of 2005, Tmt. Muthammal Transports, has filed the above appeal.2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.3. The writ petitioner, P. Swathanthirarajan, aggrieved by the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirappalli in Rc. No. 48748/A2/2004 dated 22.07.2005, renewing the Stage Carriage permit of the second respondent for their vehicle bearing registration No. TN-45-AA-7447, plying on the route Tiruchirappalli to Dindigul via. Manaparai, for a further period of five years from 31.08.2004 to 30.08.2009, filed W.P. No. 8572 of 2005.4. On 16.09.2005, the learned single Judge, after hearing the writ petitioner as well as the contesting second respondent, and after finding that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in 2005 W.L.R. 136 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Co...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ranga Durai, Vs. S. Jayalakshmi and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC227; (2007)5MLJ1228
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiffs in the Trial Court are the appellants in the Second Appeal. Originally the suit was filed for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the enjoyment of the suit property by putting up septic tank or by laying underground pipe and thereafter included the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the construction stated to have been made by the defendants in the portion marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, D. The suit property itself is a lane measuring East West 45 cubits on the Eastern side and North to South 3 cubits and the property situated in Karamadai Village, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District.2. The plaintiffs claim to be the owners of the suit property obtained by way of registered partition deed, dated 24.02.1954 marked as Ex. A.1. The first defendant has purchased the house situated immediately on the Southern side of the suit property and they have no right of way or access through the suit property, which is a passage excl...
Tag this Judgment!Beardsell Ltd. Vs. the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2007
Reported in: (2008)219CTR(Mad)44; [2008]297ITR87(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessee, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C' in I.T.A. No. 433(Mds)/99 dated 26.06.2001. On 23.02.2004, this Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial question of law.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum agreed to be paid to the appellant as sub-lessee by the lessee of the premises for the failure to provide alternate accommodation is taxable under the head Capital Gains, which is prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 19952. The facts leading to the above substantial question of law are as under:The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of expanded polythene insulation material, marketing of chemicals, motors, engineering products and also in export business. The relevant assessment year is 1994-95 and the corresponding accounting ye...
Tag this Judgment!Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by Its Chief Manager Hrs P.K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ214
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The writ petitioner Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is wholly owned by the Central Government and they have filed the present writ petition seeking for a declaration declaring that the strike notice dated 30.3.2007 issued by the respondents 1 to 3 is illegal and violative of Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'I.D. Act']. This was in view of the fact that the proceedings are pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. 2 Mumbai, for adjudication of issues relating to the quantum of Performance Linked Incentive Scheme [hereinafter referred to as 'PLIS'] between the management and the workmen and to what relief the workmen are entitled.2. I have heard the arguments of Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s King & Partridge for the petitioner and have perused the records.3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the present strike notice dated 30.3.2007 issued b...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy General Manager/Zonal Manager Reviewing Authority, Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: [2007(115)FLR499]; (2007)IIILLJ97Mad
ORDER:In view of the foregoing since malafide intention on the part of the Branch Manager have been conclusively proved on the basis of overwhelming evidences adduced during enquiry, I observe that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and subsequently confirmed by the Appellate Authority is not all commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved in the enquiry. Accordingly I propose to award the following enhanced penalties.CHARGE SHEET DATED 25.1.1982:Charge No. I - Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employmentCharge No. II - Reduction by four stages in the time scale of payCharge No. III - Reduction by two stages in the time scale of payCharge No. IV - Reduction by two stages in the time scale of payCHARGE SHEET DATED 14.5.1982:Charge No. III - Reduction by two stages in the time scale of payCharge No. V - Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employmentCHARGE SHEET DATED 1.11.1983:Dismissal which shall or...
Tag this Judgment!Sindhu (Alias) Vedapriya (Minor), Vs. Sekar and the Oriental Insurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: 2008ACJ1475
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeals are directed against the award dated 4.3.2005 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 3072 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai.2.1. The brief facts are stated as hereunder:The impugned accident had taken place on 12.5.2001 at about 15.30 hours in the National Highways near Pond's company, while the Tata Indica Car bearing Registration No. TN 22 L 4389 had a head-on collision with a Tata Sumo car bearing Registration No. TN-04-K-0396, which was coming in the opposite direction, resulted in the death of six persons and two minor children got grievously injured. The legal heirs of the deceased persons and the persons who got injured in the impugned accident have filed separate claim petitions claiming compensation against the owner of the Tata Sumo Car and its insurer, alleging that the driver of the Tata Sumo Car, by name, Sekar, came in a very rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction at...
Tag this Judgment!The Syndicate of the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Rep. by Its Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ146
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ appeal has been preferred by Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (hereinafter referred to as 'University') against judgment dated 17th July, 2002, passed in W.P. No. 7378/95 whereby and whereunder the Resolution of the University, No. 22 dated 25th Oct., 1993 and the report submitted by the 4th respondent, dated 13th Aug., 1993, were set aside and the writ petition was allowed in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner, Sri Kumaraguru Swamigal Arts College (hereinafter referred to as 'College').2. The questions involved in this appeal are:i) Whether it is open to the University to enquire into the matter of the College through a Commission or Committee?ii) Whether the University could take any penal action against its affiliated college, including the college in question, if found collecting capitation fee.3. For determination of the aforesaid issues, it is necessary to discuss the relevant facts, as mentioned hereunder:The college in question was estab...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Employees Union, Rep. by Its General Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: (2007)3MLJ284
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The two Trade Unions working in the third respondent company have filed the present writ petitions with identical prayer which is as follows:.for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to implement the GO.Ms. No. 136, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (C4) Department, dated 4.10.2006 of the 1st respondent and letter No. 54/2932/06 dated 11.10.2006 of the 2nd respondent declaring 13th and 15th October 2006 as Holidays, for the 3rd respondent's company and not to treat those days as leave on loss of pay for the employees of the third respondent.2. The local body elections held under the orders of the fourth respondent in two phases, viz., one on 13.10.2006 and the second phase was on 15.10.2006. Since 15.10.2006 happened to be a Sunday, the first respondent Government issued Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 136 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (C4) Department, dated 4.10.2006 notifying 13.10.2006 as a public holiday under Section 25 of the Negot...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Mahesh Vs. N. Ashok
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-2007
Reported in: IV(2007)BC252
ORDERR. Regupathi, J.1. The petitioner is the sole accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After taking sworn statement of the complainant, process has been issued to the accused and questioning the proceedings, pending against the petitioner, the present petition to quash the proceedings has been filed before this Hon'ble court.2. It is the alleged that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- on 20.02.2002 by executing a promissory note. To discharge the liability, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 30.06.2003 and on presentation of the same, it was dishonoured for the reason 'insufficient funds'. The respondent/complainant issued legal notice dated 04.07.2003 to the petitioner/accused which was received on 11.07.2003. Neither a reply was sent, nor the money was paid, resulting in the filing of the complaint before the learned Magistrate.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceedings has been initia...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »