Chennai Court March 2008 Judgments

S. Sankaralingam Vs. the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administra ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(3)CTC765; (2008)4MLJ914

ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The prayer in the petition is for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms. No. 4 dated 10.1.2008 and the consequential order Na.Ka. No. 54577/07/S2 dated 12.1.2008 of the second respondent and to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner as Executive Officer, Special grade in Kuruchi 3rd Grade Municipality, Coimbatore.2. Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.3. The petitioner joined the service as Junior Assistant in the year 1974. Later he was promoted as Head Clerk, Executive officer Grade II, Grade I and subsequently promoted as Executive Officer, Special Grade in 2005. His date of superannuation is 30.4.2008. On 9.11.2007, he was promoted as Assistant Director, Town Panchayat and posted to Salem Zone. 4. The petitioner has submitted a representation to the second respondent on 14.11.2007 informing that he was not in a position to accept the p...

Udayam Constructions Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]302ITR199(Mad)

S.K. Krishnan, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records of the first respondent in C. No. 7144/(35)/CIT-II/TRY/2004-05 dated August 16, 2005, and the connected proceedings of the second respondent in G.I. No. 319U/2000-01 dated March 23, 2004, and quash same as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Income-tax Act and consequently direct the second respondent herein to accept the income reported by the petitioner.3. This writ petition is being preferred by the petitioner, who is an income-tax assessee and filed a return before the second respondent for the assessment year 2000-01. The said return was filed by the petitioner herein before the second respondent on December 15, 2000. It is an admitted fact that at the time of filing of the said return before the second respondent, the petitioner herein did not enclose the audit report. It is stated that the peti...

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., by Its Branch Manager, Nagercoil Vs. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. The Opposite party in COP No.60/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam, is the appellant herein. One Samikannu had taken a Group Insurance policy. He suffered 70% disablement in an accident which took place on 5/7/2001. The opposite party refused to pay the insurance claim on the ground that it was not a case of 100% disability in which event alone the insured amount was payable. It would appear that the insured died subsequently and his legal representatives filed the complaint. With regard to insurance, the deceased being an insured under the Group Insurance Scheme is not disputed. If his claim were to be admitted, he would be entitled to 70% of the insured amount. As already noted, according to the opposite party it was not a case of permanent disability: there was no loss of vision, amputation of hand or leg and as per the terms of the policy it was a condition precedent that the victim should have suffered such a disability a...

J.B. Khanna and Company Vs. S. Asad

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj1469; LC2008(3)19

M. Venugopal, J.1. This Original Side Appeal filed by the appellant/ defendant is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned single Judge dated 24.08.2001 in C.S. No. 13 of 1989.2. The learned single Judge in his Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.2001 in C.S. No. 13 of 1989 has held that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in respect of the pictures Lake Louis and photograph of Tiger and granted relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from manufacturing, printing, selling or offering for sale the said pictures and further directed the appellant/defendant to deliver to the respondent/ plaintiff all the pictures so far manufactured by him within one month from this date and also held that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for the piracy committed and ordered that the relief of accounting shall be considered separately under Order 20 Rule 17 C.P.C. 3. According to the learned Counsel f...

Deccan Finance Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Officer

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad97

S. Manikumar, J.1. Deccan Finance Ltd., represented by its Deputy Managing Director, Financier of the vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 27 J 5400, has challenged the order, dated 3-1-2003, passed by the Regional Transport Officer, Salem, respondent herein, by which, a sum of Rs. 1,62,050/-has been demanded towards Motor Vehicles Tax for the period between 1-10-2003 and 31-12-2003.2. The respondent has not filed any counter affidavit and therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of on the merits of the case.3. Facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:The petitioner is the financier of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 27 J 5400, which is an omni bus, having All India Permit. They entered into a hire purchase agreement with Thiru S. Sukumar of Salem. He was operating the said vehicle under a permit obtained in his name. A show cause notice, dated 6-11-2003 was served on the petitioner, calling upon them to explain as to why tax due for the period 1-7-2003 to 30-9-2003 to...

A. Gnanasoundari Vs. the Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. by I ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. The complainant in COP No.47/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: - Her husband one Arunachalam had taken two policies on his life from the opposite parties, one for Rs.1 lakh and the other for Rs.20,000/-. The complainant's husband died on 20/5/1998. The complainant submitted her claim dated 11/6/1998 for payment of the amounts due under the policies. The opposite parties accepted the claim of the complainant with respect to the policy for Rs.20,000/- and issued a cheque for Rs.38,282/-. They rejected the claim with respect to the other policy for Rs.1 lakh on the ground that there was suppression of material fact while the policy was taken. When the Opposite parties have settled the claim with respect to one policy it was not proper on their part to refuse to settle the claim with regard to the other policy. In such circumstances, the complaint came to be filed. ...

The Accounts Officer (Tr) Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Coonoor Vs. V. V ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. 1. The opposite party in O.P.No.14/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udhagamandalam, is the appellant herein. He has also taken out an application for reception of additional documents. 2. The case of the complainant was as follows: - He was subscriber of telephone No.517755. There were no dues payable by him. He received a letter from the department dt.04/04/2002 claiming a sum of Rs.2,56,108/- as alleged dues payable by his father for telephone Nos:-13068, 43731, 57203, 57236 and 59214. The complainant's telephone was disconnected on the basis of the said letter. There was also a dispute between his father and the telephone department pending before the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris in O.S.No.77/2000 and it related to the Firm M/s.Arian Tea Enterprises and his father was not a partner therein. The department had earlier sent a letter dt.11/03/2002 to the complainant claiming Rs.58,909/- failing payment of which by 16/03/2002 his telephon...

Dhanraj Vs. Special Officer Telegram and Telephone Employees Co-operat ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. 1. The complainant in C.O.P.No.251/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows:- (a) He had availed vehicle loan in a sum of Rs.35,000/- from opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1. He made a down payment of Rs.8,752/-. The balance amount had to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs.1,300/- from 31/08/1998 and the last of the instalments had to be paid on 31/07/2001, the last monthly instalment being Rs.1,050/-. The instalments were deducted from his salary. Accordingly, he paid the last monthly instalment on 31/07/2001. However, the vehicle was re-possessed by opposite party No.2 on the recommendation of opposite party No.3. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite parties for return of the vehicle, to pay Rs.50/- per day towards transport charges incurred by the complainant, Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony and...

Standard Chartered Bank, Centralized Loan Processing Unit, Chennai Vs. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. 1. The opposite party in O.P. No. 256 of 2002 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein. 2. The case of the complainant was as follows: - He had submitted a loan application to purchase a car with the relevant papers. The opposite party did not inform the complainant as to whether the loan had been sanctioned or rejected. However, he received a letter on 05/04/2002 intimating that the loan had already been disbursed and that the first instalment was being deducted from the loan amount. There was no prior call or intimation before the said letter. As the terms and conditions were not satisfactory to him, the complainant had intimated the bank on 07/04/2002 about his cancellation of the loan and non-availing of the facility. But the opposite party was using the electronic clearance service and collecting instalment amount from May to July, 2002 for the unavailed and cancelled loan totalling Rs.22,500/-. The withdrawal of three monthly inst...

S. Senthil Kumar and S. Sridevi Vs. the Executive Engineer (Distributi ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ546

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the final assessment order passed by the second respondent dated 26.9.2007 in respect of a detected theft of energy regarding service connection No. 402, Kallapalayam, Tariff III-B of Pappampatty section.2. The petitioners were running an industry, by name, M/s.Sri Adhavan Textiles for two years, owned by one P.Ranganathan under a lease agreement. On inspection, the second respondent of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has made a complaint to Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore for an offence of theft of energy. The petitioners have filed a Criminal O.P. No. 13688 of 2006 to quash the said proceedings in Crime No. 299/06 and the said O.P. was admitted and stay was granted on 13.6.2006. The petitioners have also obtained anticipatory bail. 2(a). The second respondent has issued a notice dated 23.5.2006 under Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003 referring to the inspection made on 23.5.2006. The petitioners have repl...