Chennai Court June 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.
Parvathavarthini @ Kuppammal @ Raji and Sivakumar Vs. Heerachand Suran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ454
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This above Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendants against the fair and decretal order of the learned III Additional District Munsif, Pudhucherry, dated 1.6.2005 in I.A. Nos. 1256, 272, 1311, 1447 of 2004 and 3803/2003, 1221/04, 3805/03, 1222, 1327, 1218 of 2004 and 3804/03 and 2226 of 2004 in the respective suits by which the learned District Munsif refused to take up the jurisdictional issue as the preliminary issue. 2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the respective suits. The plaintiff filed the suits O.S.No: 630, 714, 590 of 2002 and 109, 629 and 108 of 2003 to declare the sales vide sale deeds dated 20.11.1998, 3.9.1997, 24.12.1997, 5.10.1998, 15.9.1997 and 27.1.1998 respectively registered in the District Registrar Office, Pudhucherry as null and void. 3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to Rajamannar Chettiar and the same devolved on the defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs on the inte...
A.R. Complex and A.R. Plaza Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)328
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the assessees, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'D', Chennai in I.T.A. No. 2005 & 2007 (Mds)/2002 dated 09.06.2003. On 04.02.2004, this Court admitted T.C.(A) No. 75 of 2004 and formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income derived from the commercial complex is to be treated as income from property?2. Having found that the commercial complex is a business asset of the appellant, whether the Tribunal went wrong in holding that income from exploitation of a business asset is income from property?On 15.04.2004, this Court admitted T.C.(A) No. 176 of 2004 and formulated the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in passing the impugned order without considering the case in the proper perspective and the submissions made?2. Whether the Tribunal is...
Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Divisional Railway Manager, Chennai D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC745; [2007(114)FLR794]; (2007)4MLJ1257
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging the award of the first respondent/Labour Court, dated 25.06.2002, made in CCP No. 30 of 1998.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:2.1. It is a part and parcel of Southern Railway, a Central Government Organisation. The second respondent joined the Railway Service as Assistant Station Master in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560. After completion of training, the second respondent took up independent duty on 05.11.1976 and, on 01.01.1983, he was transferred to Madras Division from Madurai Division on mutual request and posted at Padalam Railway Station. Thereafter, he was promoted to the grade of Rs. 425-640 and transferred to Jolarpet Junction, where he was promoted to the pay scale of Rs. 455-700 with effect from December, 1983, and, once again, on personal request, he was transferred to Mambalam Railway Station in November, 1985. While so, he was issued transfer orders, transferring him from Mambalam Railway Station t...
Misons Leather Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. Canara Bank, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad268; I(2008)BC440; (2007)4MLJ245
ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. The constitutional validity of provisions of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 as amended by the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment Act) Ordinance, 2004 (Act 30 of 2004) is challenged in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been enacted to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected thereto. The Act enables the banks and financial institutions to realise long-term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mis-match and improve recovery by exercising powers to take possession of securities, sell them and reduce non-performing assets by adopting measures for recovery or reconst...
K. Jayakodi Vs. the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC475
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor on 06.03.1982. He was promoted as Lineman on 18.10.1984 and was later made as Store Lineman with effect from 1993. While functioning as Store Lineman, he was served with a Memo on 29.02.1996 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecom, asking for his explanation for the shortage of items in stores. By reply dated 05.03.1996, the petitioner denied the contents of the memo. On 06.03.1996, he was placed under suspension. On 15.07.1996, a Charge Memo was served on him, regarding misappropriation of stores. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges and, by a report, dated 14.03.2002, the Inquiry Officer found all the three charges levelled against the petitioner, as proved. 2. Based on the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, namely, third respondent herein imposed an order of dismissal from service on 23.04.2002, which was confirmed in appeal by the second respondent on 21.06.2002. Thereafter, ...
Jail Electronic (Partnership Firm) Rep. by Its Partner N. Jayakumar Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC451
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The Writ Petition No. 41416 of 2005 has been filed to forbear the respondent Bank from proceeding with the sale by auction or other modes in respect of the guarantee relating to Shri. Balashanmugam's properties described in schedule in O.A. No. 296 of 2003 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal at Coimbatore till O.P. No. 51 of 2003, is disposed of by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chennai and Writ Petition No. 41320 of 2005, is for direction against the 4th respondent, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Chennai to dispose of O.P. No. 51 of 2003, on merits.2. It is the case of the petitioner that by virtue of certain disputes between them, who are dealers in electronic goods and the owner of Singapore Plaza from whom they have taken lease of their shop and subsequent fire accident which took place in their business place on 30.04.2001 at 2.30 am, by which all the stocks have been totally burnt, in respect of which there has been a crimin...
S. Janagarathinam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC363; [2007(115)FLR950]; (2007)6MLJ1327
P. Jyothimani, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 01.10.2005 and to direct the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No. 666 dated 27.06.1989, revising the scale of pay of the appellant from Rs. 705/- to Rs. 905/- with allowances from 27.06.1989.2. According to the appellant, he was working as a Store Keeper (Technical) in the second respondent establishment with effect from 19.08.1988 and at that time he was having Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and therefore, his pay should have been fixed as Rs. 905/-. Even though he was having higher qualification than which was required for the Store Keeper, his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 705/-, whereas salary of Foreman/Depot Supervisor in other Transport Corporations was fixed at Rs. 905-1545. The request of the appellant to fix his pay at Rs. 905/- with effect from the Fifth Pay Commission made ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: [2008]296ITR717(Mad); 2009[15]STR112
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. T.C. (A) No. 446 of 2007 is filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'C' in I.T.A. No. 1565/Mds/2004 dated April 21, 2006, for the assessment year 1999-2000, raising the following substantial questions of law:1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the excise duty and sales tax do not form part of the turnover, for the purpose of calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC?2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional liability on account of purchase of plant and machinery, which arose due to exchange fluctuation has to be treated as revenue expenditure?2. T.C. (A) Nos. 830 and 831 of 2007 are filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'C', Chennai in I.T...
Management, Malaysian Airlines Vs. the Presiding Officer, Principal La ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ1300
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The management of Malaysian Airlines at Chennai has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the award of the Labour Court, seeking to call for the records on the file of the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai, first respondent herein, relating to I.D. No. 579 of 1993 and to quash the award, dated 30.01.2004, made therein.2. According to the petitioner, the second respondent/workman filed an application under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court') in I.D. No. 579 of 1993, claiming that he was employed as a Traffic Assistant with effect from 04.07.1987 and the said workman was stopped from work on 07.04.1993 without any notice or compensation and that his non-employment was not justified.3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Attendance Register, which is maintained in the usual course and which c...
D. Meganathan and ors. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC462
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash that portion of the award dated 24.05.2001 in Complaint No. 3 of 1991, declining full back-wages and other attendant benefits and for a direction to the second respondent to pay the same to the petitioners along with other attendant benefits.2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as under:a. In order to have their interest protected, some of the workers of the second respondent Company formed a union styled 'W.S. Industries National Workers Union' (in short 'the Union') which was affiliated to INTUC. When the second respondent Company introduced contract labour in place of permanent workers, the objection of the Union towards such move was futile. Hence, the Union obtained an order of injunction restraining the second respondent Company from employing contract workmen in place of permanent workmen and yet another injunction order was obtained restraining the second respondent Company from removing machinery, r...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »