Chennai Court November 2008 Judgments

Dr. K. Inbasekhar, M.D.D.M., Inba Heart Hospital, Nagercoil Vs. M. Sam ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the opposite party and respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complaint is represented by the learned counsel and there is no representation for the respondent / opposite party. After notice is ordered, the counsel for the appellant has taken private notice indicating that the respondent shall appear on 11.11.2008. The said notice was received by the authorized person of the complainant / respondent on 26.10.2008. Thereafter the respondent / complainant has sent telegram to the Registry that he is not in a position to travel and prayed for an adjournment with a request to intimate the date of next hearing. On the basis of the said telegram, the registry has sent a notice, indicating the next hearing date as 26.11.2008. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent / complainant. 3. In the light of the above, we propose to dispose of the appeal based on the available records and the entire...

Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Rep. by Its Vice Preside ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: LC2009(2)264; 2009(41)PTC597(Mad)

D. Murugesan, J.1. The O.S.A. No. 290 of 2008 is filed by M/s. Orchid Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Limited, while O.S.A. Nos. 301 and 339 of 2008 are filed by M/s. United Biotech Pvt. Limited. As the appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned single Judge, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. For convenience, M/s. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited will be referred to as 'the appellant', while M/s. United Biotech Pvt. Limited will be referred to as 'the respondent'.3. The conflict between the parties which resulted in the litigation are as follows:(i) According to the appellant company, they are engaged in the manufacture of Pharmaceutical preparations since 1992. One of the products launched by the appellant company in the market in the year 1992 was CEFTAZIDIME preparations marketed in the trade mark ORZID. The appellant company obtained manufacturing licence for the product ORZID on 18.12.1998 with respect to export sale. They...

Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ918

D. Murugesan, J.1. The core question to be decided in this matter is as to whether in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is empowered to entertain a writ petition questioning the land acquisition proceedings after the award is passed and possession is taken. For deciding the said question, the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requires a mention.2. The Government, entrusted with the solemn duty to provide facilities for the public, is empowered to acquire the land in order to promote the public welfare and the economic development, normally known as public purpose. The power to acquire the land owned by individuals hails from the right of eminent domain vesting in the State which is essentially an attribute of sovereign power of the State. Such exercise of power is for public purpose, the individual rights of an owner must yield place to the larger public interest. On the other hand, while the acquisition of land belonging to individ...

Dr. V. Balaji, 30/M S/O K.S. Venkatachalam, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) R ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ1041

ORDERA.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This public interest litigation has been filed by four persons who are all qualified medical practitioners impugning the G.O (D) No. 572, dated 14.05.2008 issued by the Health and Family Welfare (MCA) Department whereby the Government of Tamil Nadu accepted the proposal of Directorate of Medical Education and accorded permission to start six months certificate course in Diabetelogy on Distance Mode in all the Government Medical Colleges. This Course will be conducted by a Professor of Medicine/Professor of Diabetelogy and one coordinator with a total intake of 750 students in 14 medical colleges at the rate of 75 in Madras Medical College, Chennai and Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai and 50 in other Government medical colleges. The details of the course were also spelt out in the said G.O as under:i. Criteria for AdmissionCandidates with MBBS Degree are eligible to undergo the courseii. Duration of the CourseThe duration of the course is 6 months. 5 contact cl...

The Director of Industries and Commerce Vs. P.N. Kumar and the Officia ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]151CompCas476(Mad)

D. Murugesan, J.1. The Original Side Appeal questions the Judgement and Decree dated 01.03.2007 made in C.A. No. 1327 of 2005 in C.P. No. 61 of 1992, whereby the learned single Judge, while rejecting the said application taken out by one Mr. P.N. Kumar, the Director of M/s. Sears Electronics Limited, seeking for a direction to the Official Liquidator to pay a sum of Rs. 2,05,806/- to the Director of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tamil Nadu, in respect of the allotment order under reference in No. 41179/EL3/87, dated 29.09.1987 and to get the sale deed in favour of M/s. Sears Electronics Limited, a company in liquidation, directed the assignment of the land comprised in Plot No. 2, in Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Instronics Estates, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41 measuring an extent of 0.75 Acres to M/s. Sears Electronics Limited.2. The dispute revolves on the following facts:By way of an order of allotment No. 41179/EL3/87, dated 29.09.1987, a shed No. Type II 39, in Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Ins...

Little Flower Primary School Rep. by the Secretary Vs. the Joint Direc ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(1)CTC289

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both sides the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 2.8.2005 rejecting request of the management seeking prior approval to terminate the services of the 4th respondent, which confirms the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.4.2002 and direct the second respondent to grant prior approval to dismiss the 4th respondent on the basis of the proposal dated 12.5.2001.3. The facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition as could be seen from the pleadings and documents filed in the writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner school was established in the year 1973 by the Weavers of the Hindu Devanga community and in particular, the Appukolluthar Dayathikal sect. It is a recognised private aided school. The School Committee was formed for three years, which was approved by the second respondent from 13.12.1996. The Committee consis...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.K. Ganeshwar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]308ITR124(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The following questions of law were framed in this tax case. However, the learned Counsel would refer only to questions 1 and 4 for consideration.1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the block assessments under Section 158BC could not be made unless the assessment is based only on materials, valuables, etc., found during the course of such search ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the issues considered in the block assessment should have been considered in a reassessment procedure and not in a block assessment ?3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the information not found during the course of search cannot be used to arrive at an undisclosed income under the block assessment as per Section 158BB amended with retrospective effect from July 1, ...

The Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Secretary Revenue Department and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2009(239)ELT247(Mad)

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The matter relates to reward payable to informers, who give advance information to Revenue Intelligence of Excise and Customs Department.The 1st respondent/writ petitioner, preferred writ petition to direct the appellants, who are respondents to the writ petition to pay reward to the respondent/writ petitioner as per circular F. No. R.13011/5/88 ADB dated 7th June, 1988.Learned Judge, by impugned order dated 8th March, 2001, having allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to pay the reward to the respondent/writ petitioner as per circular dated 7th June, 1988, in and by which a partial modification to annexure to the instructions contained in the letter dated 30th March, 1985 had been made with regard to quantum of reward payable to the informers, the present appeal has been preferred by Union of India and Revenue authorities.2. In fact, the case is not based on any question on law and is dependent on the question of facts, particularly the question of...

The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ334

V. Dhanapalan, J.1 This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 3.12.1999, passed in W.P. No. 16171/92, whereby the learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein, and set aside the order of the first appellant and directed reinstatement of the respondent with all backwages, attendant benefits and continuity of service from the date of his dismissal from service till he is reinstated.2. The aforesaid order was canvassed in this Appeal and by judgement dated 5.9.2003, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench while setting aside order passed in the Writ Petition had considered the following aspects, viz., that the appellant, Central Industrial Security Force is an armed force wherein discipline is of the utmost importance; the respondent committed the acts of indiscipline in consort with others establishes the deliberate intent of the respon...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pioneer Press P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]308ITR154(Mad); [2010]186TAXMAN448(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. Mrs. Prabha Sridevan J.-The question raised in these appeals is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the contingency deposit collected towards tax liability would not form part of the income. The assessment years relate to 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively.2. The assessee is a company engaged in offset printing. For the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, the assessee filed its return. The assessee had collected an amount of Rs. 3,38,586 (assessment year 1992-93) and Rs. 4,42,448 (assessment year 1993-94) as contingency deposits for payment of possible tax liability. The assessee's case is that the contingency deposit collected during the year is not a trading receipt, but only a deposit. In the assessment order, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the assessee's contention holding that whether it is shown as contingency deposit account or suspense account, it made no difference and the c...