Chennai Court January 2008 Judgments
Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Pirivu Anna Thozhir Sangam, Rep. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ1377
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The above Writ Appeal is directed against the Order of the learned single Judge dated 25.11.1998 made in W.P. No. 7054 of 1992.2. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner union was registered in the year 1976 and even though the State Evaluation and Implementation Committee, after evaluating the strength of various Unions in the 1st respondent Corporation, recommended that the petitioner Union be recognised, it was withdrawn in view of certain objections by other Unions. Subsequently, the said Committee in the meeting held on 22.12.1988 recommended recognition of the petitioner Union and the 1st respondent Corporation conferred recognition to the petitioner Union vide Proceedings dated 25.01.1989. On coming to know the activities of the 2nd respondent to cancel the recognition given to the petitioner Union, it filed W.P. No. 18349 of 1991 to protect the petitioner Union's recognition and on 28.04.1992, the learned Judge confirmed the injunction alre...
Tag this Judgment!Elephant G. Rajendran Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ1025
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. These two writ petitions are Public Interest Litigations preferred by a practising advocate of this Court. In the above writ petitions, the petitioner seeks for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 for taking necessary legal action for demolition of all illegal and unauthorised constructions built in violation of Section 217-B of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 in four Taluks, namely, Ooty, Gudalur, Kothagiri and Coonur of Nilgiris District.2. In M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 in W.P. No. 32855 of 2007, the petitioner seeks for an interim direction to respondents 1 to 5 for filing a detailed report as to the number of buildings which were constructed in violation of the planning rules in the above referred to Taluks. Similarly, such interim directions were sought for in M.P. No. 1 and 2 of 2007 in W.P. No. 32747 of 2007 and also for a direction to disconnect power, water and sewerage connections.3. W...
Tag this Judgment!James Fredrick and anr. Vs. Coromandel, Indag Products India Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: [2008]141CompCas911(Mad); (2008)5MysLJ530; [2008]85SCL351(Mad)
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants, who have preferred this appeal against order dated August 24, 1999, passed by the learned judge in O.A. No. 470 of 1998 in C.S. No. 590 of 1998. By the said order, the learned judge, while did not choose to pass any order of interim injunction restraining the second respondent/defendant from holding out as managing director of the first respondent/defendant-company--Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd., directed the second defendant to convene a general body meeting of the first defendant-company and to elect board of directors in accordance with articles of association.2. As the case could be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to detail all the facts, except the relevant ones, as mentioned hereunder:The first defendant-company--Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. According to the plaintiffs, they are the shareholders. A suit was preferred for declaration...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. B. Sundari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC309
K. Venkataraman, J.1. The petitioner, Bank of India, has come forward with the present revision against the fair and decretal order dated 19.7.2006 made by the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore, in I.A. No. 1030 of 2006 in O.S. No. 1348 of 2006.2. The first respondent herein had laid the said Suit against the petitioner and one C. Natarajan, the second respondent in this Revision, for payment injunction restraining them from in any way disturbing her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the deposit amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the second respondent. Since the petitioner-Bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, herein referred to as SRFAESI Act, She had laid the said Suit. In the said Suit, she has taken out an Application in I.A. No. 1030 of 2006 for interim injunction. The learned trial Judge, by his order dated 19.7.2006, granted interim order. Questioning the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Group Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: [2008]300ITR113(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai in M.P. No. 271/Mds/06 in I.T.A. No. 156/Mds./01 dated July 31, 2007, for the assessment year 1997-98 formulating the following question of law:1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue wherein it was pleaded that the additional ground was not considered by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal?2. The miscellaneous petition in M.P. No. 271/Mds/06 in I.T.A. No. 156/Mds./01 came to be filed by the Revenue in the following circumstances. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order for the assessment year 1997-98, inter alia, restricted the deduction under Section 80-IA to the business income and excluded the income from other sources. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Mappillai Vinayakar Cine Complex Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: [2008]146CompCas110(Mad); [2010]97SCL252(Mad); (2008)14VST459(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Admit. With consent of learned Counsel on either side the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are set out below:The petitioner is a partnership firm originally constituted in the year 1984 and it is running a cinema theatre under a duly granted licence; on the demise of one of the partners in 1997 the partnership was reconstituted and the business was continued; in 2006 the partnership was again reconstituted and the new partnership firm was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 bearing Registration No. 206 of 2006 on the file of the Registrar of Firms, Madurai (South); the petitioner-firm is also an assessee on the file of the respondent under the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 and as on today the following persons are the partners in the petitioner-firm:(a) Sri. Kathirvel(b) Smt. K. Neethimallika(c) K. K. Ambalavanan(d) Sri. K. Balamuruganandam(e) Smt. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ravi Enterprises and ors. Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: III(2008)BC67
ORDER1. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition praying for an issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent viz., the Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in regard to the order dated 10.5.2007 passed in M.A. No. 205 of 2006 and M.A. No. 206 of 2006 and quash the same and, consequently, not to confirm the auction held on 11.10.2006 in DRT No. 103 of 1999 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I in respect of the schedule mentioned property.2. The writ petitioners are the defendants in O.A. No. 1774 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The first respondent-Bank has filed O.A. No. 1774 of 1998 against the writ petitioners/defendants for recovering a sum of Rs. 20,71,776/- with interest at 19.89% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation with costs and for sale of the plaint schedule property. The writ petitioners/defendants 1 to 4 were set ex pa...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Andavar Cotton and Synthetic Spinners Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas600(Mad); (2008)2LLJ887Mad; 2008(3)LLN290
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The appellant, Palani Andavar Cotton and Synthetic Spinners Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Company') preferred the writ petition against common award passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. Nos. 137/2004 to 197/2004, dated September 20, 2005. By the said award, the workmen, respondents 2 to 62 to the writ petition were reinstated with continuity of service and 25% back wages, their order of termination having declared illegal. In the writ petition, the respondents-workmen preferred a petition, W.M.P. No. 1781/2007, under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, wherein, by impugned order dated September 27, 2007, learned single Judge, having allowed the application in respect of most of the workmen, except respondents 2, 4, 8, 17, 26, 27, 40, 46, 51, 52, 55 and 60, the present appeal has been preferred by the company against the said order.2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant challenged the impugned order passed u...
Tag this Judgment!D. Padmini Vs. the Registrar General, High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ241
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The above Writ Petition is preferred against the order/official memorandum, dated 23.08.2002, in ROC No. 5595/2002/ESTT.II, issued by the Sub Assistant Registrar (ESTT.) in-charge, in and by which, the petitioner has been informed that she is not eligible for pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules) and that, if she desires, she may submit her application to the Government for relaxation of Rules and sanction of pension.2. It appears that the petitioner joined the Madras High Court Service on 24.07.1964 as Copyist and on 23.08.1966, she was appointed as Typist and thereafter, as Selection Grade Typist on 01.10.1978. She was promoted as Assistant on 06.04.1981.According to the petitioner, she got married and subsequent thereto, she had to go on short leave at different times due to her ill-health, family affairs and as her husband was working at Hyderabad. She opted for long leave on loss of pay and the Reg...
Tag this Judgment!Sholinganallur Kumaran Nagar Pakuthi Vaal Makkal Nala Munnetra Sangam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ141
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Whether the appellant in writ appeal and the petitioners in respective writ petitions, who are alleged to be unauthorised occupants of the lands, being the property of the Government, are liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short the 'Act') is a question that arise for our consideration in the above batch of cases.2.1. The writ appeal is preferred by a third party, viz. Sholinganallur Kumaran Nagar Pakuthi Vaal Makkal Nala Munnetra Sangam, a registered body under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act against the order dated 13.7.2006 made in W.P. No. 21140 of 2006, preferred by a company/fourth respondent in the writ appeal, which proposed to set up an industry for Information Technology Park of international standard in the Cyber corridor established by the State at Sholinganallur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.2.2. According to the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 21140 of 2006, adjacent to the la...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »