Chennai Court July 2007 Judgments
Tamilnadu Technical Teachers Association Rep. by Its Secretary P. Vell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ761
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This Writ Petition is filed by a registered society of Technical Teachers' Association represented by its Secretary. By the amended prayer, the writ petitioner seeks to quash para 3(3) of the G.O.Ms. No. 752, Education, Science and Technology Department, dated 18.10.1996 with a consequential prayer to regularise the Craft Teachers working in Government and Aided Schools in Tamilnadu as Secondary Grade Teachers from the date of their assuming charge after completing three months' Secondary Grade Training Course by duly re-designating them.2. The prayer of such a nature by an Association cannot be entertained by this Court as the said body cannot complain about the validity of the G.O. unless any of the aggrieved teacher is also made as a party in view of the fact that what is urged is the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.3. The G.O. impugned in this Writ Petition, provides that the Craft Teachers who have got three months training can be appointed in the...
Tag this Judgment!E.S.i. Corporation, Rep. by Its Regional Director Vs. Bethall Engineer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC529; [2007(115)FLR256]; (2008)ILLJ278Mad; (2007)4MLJ1273; 2008(2)SLJ233(NULL)
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. The learned single Judge has made this reference to the Larger Bench as he felt that there is an apparent conflict between the two Division Bench Judgments of this Court as regards the issue whether the right of the principal employer to reject or accept work on completion, on scrutinizing compliance with job requirements, as accomplished by a contractor, the immediate employer, through his employees, is in itself an effective and meaningful 'supervision' as envisaged under Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for brevity's sake, hereinafter will be referred to as 'the Act').2. The facts leading to this reference may be stated shortly. The Southern Railway placed orders in respect of certain engineering works with the respondent and for execution of the works, the respondent used to assign some job work to outside parties by supply of materials. The outside parties were having their own establishment and employees. According to the respondent, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Saraswathi and Vs. the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Land ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC714; (2007)5MLJ1240
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the proceedings initiated by the second respondent under the provisions of the Principal Act, Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 as abated by virtue of Section 4 of the Repeal Act 20 of 1999 in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Survey Nos. 73/2, 74/12 and 74/3, measuring to an extent of 6550 sq. mts., situate at Selavoyal Village, Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:The agricultural lands comprised in Survey Nos. 73/2, 74/12 and 74/3, measuring to an extent of 6550 sq. mts., situate at Selavoyal Village, Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District originally belonged to Govindasamy Naicker, father of the petitioners herein, who died in the year 1972 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs. Thereafter, the petitioners have been cultivating the said lands and are in continuous possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Ambikapathi @ Vinayagam Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2007
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ513
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The issue involved in all these writ petitions are one and the same, hence, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The case of the petitioners in all these writ petitions are as follows:The lands of the petitioners herein were sought to be acquired by the respondents by invoking the urgent provisions of Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purpose of providing house sites to Tsunami affected victims dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act thereby the petitioners were deprived of their valuable right to make objections against the acquisition of their lands and there is no real urgency as on the date of the issuance of notification. There are vast vacant poromboke lands available, but without acquiring it, they sought to acquire the lands of the petitioners. In some of the petitioners lands, fruit bearing trees, coconut grove, palmirah trees etc., were raised and that their lands are situate with...
Tag this Judgment!J. Mathew (Died) and ors. Vs. Leela Joseph
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC318; (2007)5MLJ740
P.K. Misra, J.1. Original Defendants 1 and 2 have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge in T.O.S. No. 43 of 1995 granting Letters of Administration of the Will dated 6.5.1992. During pendency of the appeal, Appellant No. 1 has expired and his legal representatives have been brought on record.2. Genealogy relevant to the case is as follows:Joseph Swaminathan Leela JosephRosary (First Wife) (2nd Wife)| ||____________________________________________|__________| | | |1. J. Mathew(D1) 2. J. Damien(D2) 1. Malarkodi 2. EzhilarasiSon Son| |3. Jayanthi 4. IsabellaDaughter DaughterThe Will is purported to be executed by one P. Joseph Swaminathan. Original defendants 1 and 2 are the two sons of said Joseph Swaminathan through first wife. Two daughters were also born through first wife. After the death of first wife, Joseph Swaminathan married Leela Joseph, who filed O.P. No. 410 of 1995 for grant of Letters of Administration, which was subsequently on conte...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Josephine Jerome W/O. Late S. Eric Jerome, Vs. S. Santiago and S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC672
P.K. Misra, J.1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment in T.O.S. No. 27 of 1997 dated 20.12.2000. Aggrieved over the grant of probate of the Will executed by the testatrix, viz., late Mary Santiago, the Defendants have preferred this Appeal.2. The parties are related as under:Mary Santiago (died on 25.10.1994)S. Santiago (P.1)| _____________________________________________| | |Late S. Eric Jerome Josephine Nirmala Augustin S. Thomas(died on 29.6.95) (P.2)|Josephine Jerome(D.1)|_______________________________| | | Emanuvel Antony Julith MosesSandanaraj (D.3) (D.4)(D.2) The case of the Plaintiffs' is that Mary Santiago left behind a Will dated 08.07.1994, where under, she had made a bequest granting life estate to her husband-First Plaintiff and absolute estate to the Second Plaintiff, who is the ultimate beneficiary. After the death of Mary Santiago, the Plaintiffs had filed O.P. No. 748/95 for issuance of probate of the Will. The Appellants/Defendants filed caveat and therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.S. Mangudi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: [2008]304ITR388(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The assessment year is 1992-93. The assessee is a dealer in forest produce. The assessing officer passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act on 21.3.2001 for the assessment year 1992-93 by determining the assessee's taxable turnover for the relevant assessment year at Rs. 1,52,080/- as against the returned income of Rs. 31,080/-. Against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. As against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal by following the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M. Chellappan : [2006]281ITR444(Mad) and quashed the order of assessment by holding that the notice issued by the assessing officer is invalid. That order has not been agitated further by the Reven...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cafco Syndicate Shipping Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: [2007]294ITR134(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed invoking Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, against the order of the of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'A' Bench made in I.T.A. No. 1130/Mds/2005 dated 25.1.2007. The relevant assessment year is 2002-03. The substantial questions of law formulated for entertainment of the appeal are as follows:1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is impermissible as nothing was concealed from the department, when the assessee had filed revised returns admitting an additional income of Rs. 22,65,900/- only after the survey under Section 133A of the I.T. Act 1961?2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case liability to penalty can be avoided by filing a revised return after concealment was detected by the assessing officer by a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act 1961?2. The statement of facts as culled out from the grounds of appeal i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Babaji Rajah Bonsle Chatrapathy Hereditary Trustee Vs. the Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ289
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The appellant is the Senior Prince of the Hereditary Trustee Palace Devasthanam, Thanjavur and also Senior Prince of the Thanjavur Mahrata Royal Family, representing the senior branch of the same. His father, Sivaja Rajah predeceased his grandfather, Rajaran Rajah Sahib. As the eldest member of the eldest branch of the Royal Family, the appellant is now occupying the office of hereditary trustee of Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam.Whileso functioning, the first respondent, Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Madras, issued the impugned order No. 166451/88 H.3 dated 7th Feb., 1989. By the said circular, it was ordered to take prior approval of the Commissioner, prior to filling up the vacancies of office holders and servants in the Devasthanam. It was received by the Treasurer and Manager, but was not brought to the notice of the appellant and having come to know of the same some time later, he challenged the circular dated 7th Fe...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs. Jraj Exports (P) Ltd. and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-2007
Reported in: 2007(122)ECC118; 2007(148)LC118(Madras)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The above appeal is filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962, against the Final Order No. 445 of 2006 dated 26.5.2005 made by the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The question of law formulated for entertainment of the appeal is as follows.Whether it is correct in Law for the learned CESTAT to hold that Bank Guarantee is a security in lieu of duty even after enforcing the same and appropriated towards the duty by the Department?2. The first respondent in this appeal had imported capital goods under EPCG Licence No. 2142049 dated 1.7.1998 with the condition to fulfill the export obligation imposed against the above EPCG licence within the prescribed time limit. The first respondent failed to submit the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate from the appropriate authority, even after the expiry of the prescribed time. Hence, the appellant had invoked the Bank guarantee furnished for the proper performance of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »