Chennai Court November 2008 Judgments

A. Syed Hassan Vs. the Principal District Judge,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ7

ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to set aside the proceedings of the 1st respondent in A. No. 338 of 2002 dated 05.08.2008 and direct the respondents to continue him in service and to regularize his service in the post of Junior Assistant.2.The case of the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit, is as under:The petitioner's father, by name, I.Syed Akbar, who was employed as Head Clerk in the Principal District Munsif Court at Villupuram died on 10.11.2001, while in service. Pursuant to his father's death, the petitioner made an application to the 1st respondent for compassionate appointment as Junior Assistant, as he possessed requisite qualification. After careful consideration of the application made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent herein appointed the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the Principal Sub Court at Tindivanam on compassionate grounds. In pursuance of the order of appointment, the petitioner joined duty on 07.03.2...

The Central Scientific Supplies Co. Ltd., and Another Vs. the Manager ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellants are the complainants and the respondent is the opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum, under the following the circumstances: The complainants on behalf of their employees have entered into an agreement with the opposite party. As per the said agreement, the opposite party has agreed to extend the benefit of Pure Endowment Plan to the employees of the complainants, for the payment of the gratuity amount as and when the claims are made by the complainants. According to the complainant, eventhough the opposite parties by communication dt.10.2.1997 (Ex.A3), demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.31,445/-, which was complied with and later on the complainants have chosen to send discharge vouchers for three of their employees to sanction a sum of Rs.94,908/-. The opposite parties have suddenly turn around and took a stand that the complainants are liable to pay a h...

General Manager Cuddalore District Central, Cuddalore Vs. C. Ramakrish ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service under the following circumstances. 3. The complainant has availed mortgage loan during 1989 and he has discharged the loan in the year 2002. On 5.11.2004, the complainant issued a lawyers notice, requesting the opposite party to return the original documents, since the said documents were not handed over to the complainant at the time of discharge of loan. As there was no proper reply, the complainant has approached the District Forum. 4. The opposite party resisted the complaint by contending that the complainant himself who was employed as an Assistant General Manager at the relevant period of time, who was in charge of the concerned section, dealing with the mortgage loan and after retirement he has come forward with the present claim and according...

The Joint Registrar TuticorIn District Central Co-operative Bank Tutic ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the 4th opposite party and the respondents 1 and 2 are the complainants and the respondents 3 to 5 are the opposite parties 1 to 3 before the District Forum. 2. The above appeal is filed as against the order passed by the District Forum, wherein the complaint filed by the complainants is allowed with a direction to refund the amount, which was deposited by way of Fixed Deposits, with interest. 3. The present appeal is filed by the 4th opposite party, raising various other grounds as set out in the Memorandum of appeal. 4. A perusal of the order of the District Forum discloses that the opposite parties are not justified in refusing to repay the Fixed Deposit amounts to the complainants, accordingly the complaint is allowed. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum, which is a well considered order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost....

B. Olivannan and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporatio ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ316

S. Tamilvanan, J.1. The writ appeal has been preferred, challenging the correctness of the order, dated 11.02.1998 made in W.P. No. 4862 of 1996 by the learned single Judge.2. The appellants herein were the petitioners in the writ petition. They were working as Assistant Managers in the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd, the first respondent herein in different stations on the date of filing the writ petition. They were directly recruited and appointed as Assistant Managers by the first respondent, as per Service Rules from open market and the respondents 2 to 15 were promotees to the post of Assistant Manager from the feeder category of officers in the first respondent Corporation.3. The appellants/petitioners filed the writ petition for quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in No. Admn/A3/1706/95, dated 08.03.1995, whereby the seniority of the appellants herein was altered by placing them below the respondents 2 to 15 herein and the connected proceedings of...

V. Narayanan Vs. Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)IILLJ135Mad

V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Appellant has filed this Writ Appeal, aggrieved over the order, dated 31.01.2008, passed in W.P. No. 20687 of 2001, whereby a learned single Judge confirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the appellant by the first and third respondents.2. Appellant was a Lead Bank Manager at Pudukkottai Branch of Indian Overseas Bank and he had put in more than 29 years of service. For the alleged harassment caused to him, he wrote several letters to the superior authorities with copies to outside agencies such as Ministry of Finance, Reserve Bank of India, Indian Banks Association etc. Construing the same as misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant, framing certain charges, which resulted in his suspension on 20.08.1999. Thereafter, Inquiring Authority was appointed to look into the matter. Based on the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority, namely, first respondent, passed an order of compulsory retirement against the appe...

G. Ranganathan, Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Commissioner ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ129

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The appellants are the joint owners of the land admeasuring an extent of 1008 sq.ft. in T.S. Nos. 23/1, 23/2 and 23/3 of Salem Municipality and the said land was acquired for expansion of tyre plant of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. According to the appellants the property was purchased by their father D.P. Gopala Iyengar as early as in 1926 in an auction conducted by Salem Municipality. It is seen that earlier the Government published a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in the Government Gazette dated 4.7.1979 as per G.O.Ms. No. 597 Transport Department dated 31.5.1979, stating that the land situated in T.S. Nos. 23/1, 23/2 and 23/3 is needed for the expansion of the bus depot of the second respondent Corporation and after taking note of the objections raised by the appellants, those acquisition proceedings were dropped. Subsequently, again, the Government has published Section 4(1) Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 537, Transpor...

P.N. Kanagaraj Vs. the Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)8MLJ1085

ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both sides the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. Prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- either jointly or severally to the petitioner's family for the murder of his son Z. Jagankumar by the 7th respondent within his class room in the 5th respondent School during the school hours.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:(a) The petitioner's eldest son K. Jagankumar, aged 16 years was studying in 11th standard (+1) in the 5th respondent School. On 12.1.2004, at about 8.30 a.m., the petitioner dropped his son K. Jagankumar in the School and returned to his home. Within two hours, petitioner received a shocking news that his son K. Jagankumar died. Petitioner was informed that his son's body was in the mortuary in Government Hospital, Pollachi. (b) On 12.1.2004 at about 12.30 hours one T. Balamuga Ramesh the class...

The Management, the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Divisio ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ355

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioner/Management seeks Writ of Certiorari to quash the Order dated 16.10.2002 passed in I.D. No. 171/1999 on the file of the 2nd Respondent.2. Briefly stated case of the 1st Respondent is that:(i) On 22.9.1979, 1st Respondent was appointed as 'Plot Watcher' on daily wage basis. Thereafter, 1st Respondent's service was terminated on 07.7.1987, without any notice and reasons and without complying the mandatory requirements of Section 25F. First Respondent's last drawn salary was Rs. 225/- p.m. First Respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 171/1999 before the Labour Court, Cuddalore.(ii) Writ Petitioner/Management contested the Petition, on the ground that 1st Respondent was engaged as Plot Watcher on daily wage basis for the specific scheme viz., 'Sethiathope Channel Plantation Scheme' and his engagement was purely temporary. It was further averred that as a Plot Watcher, 1st Respondent worked for a few days during 1982 in 'Udayar Canal Plantation...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamilnadu Small Industries Development ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]308ITR294(Mad); [2009]182TAXMAN209(Mad)

Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The following questions have been raised for consideration:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the penal interest claimed to have been waived by the assessee-company should be allowed as deduction?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made on account of discrepancy in stock; which was not adjusted in the accounts, but kept in abeyance without any clarification by the asses-see as to treatment of the excess and shortage in the accounts?2. The assessee is a State of Tamil Nadu undertaking. It advances loan to industries on terms and in default levies penal interest. It was claimed by the assessee that it had waived the penal interest of Rs. 8,18,810 for the assessment year 1986-87 and a sum of Rs. 27,51,127 for the assessment year 1987-88. According to the assessee, the interest received was subs...