Chennai Court March 2008 Judgments

The Executive Officer Thittachery Town Panchayat Thittacherry Vs. Mrs. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. (open court) 1. The opposite party in C.O.P.No.37/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagapattinam, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows:- (a) For supply of drinking water, the complainant paid a fee of Rs.160/- on 26/07/1993 to the opposite party. She wrote to the opposite party again on 26/04/2001 stating that though she had paid the amount, no connection had been given. In reply to that letter, the opposite party admitted to having received Rs.160/- deposit but stated that no centage fee had been paid by the complainant. The complainant had not been so instructed nor was any intimation given to him for paying any such fee. Because of the non-supply of water for over 7 years, the complainant had to undergo great suffering. She had to buy drinking water from outside. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed claiming a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards costs and for a further d...

Bharat Overseas Bank Limited Rep. by Its Chief Manager (Pers.) Vs. the ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)IILLJ569Mad

P.K. Misra, J.1. All these writ petitions, except W.P. No. 17453 of 2000, have been filed by commercial banks having branches in Tamil Nadu as well as in other States for quashing the notification dated 25.2.2000 issued by the Union of India and raising the question of applicability of the provisions contained in the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme made thereunder. W.P. No. 17453 of 2000 is filed by the Karur Vysya Bank Employees' Union essentially for the very same purpose.2. Under the Sastri Award, while considering the demand relating to introduction of Provident Fund, certain recommendations had been made regarding introduction of Provident Fund for employees in various Banks having branches in more than one State. Accordingly, such provisions were made by the Banks concerned. Initially Banks were not coming within the scope of the Employees Provident Fund, in short 'EPF', until notification dated 18.12.1965 in respect of Banks '...d...

V. Mohan, Etc. Vs. the Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ2821

P.K. Misra, J.1. One V.P. Selvarajan was convicted under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 by the judgment dated 23-11-1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the convict'). The petitioner in W.P. No. 1150 of 2001 is the wife of one V.P. Vadivel Achari, who is the brother of such convict and the petitioner in W.P. No. 1149/2001 is the nephew of the convict (the son of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1150 of 2000). After coming into force of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the competent authority issued a notice apparently under Section 18 of the Act to the Income-tax Officer (1st respondent) to make enquiries regarding the agricultural land, house, investments and capital account shown in the balance sheet of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1150/2001. Such petitioner furnished details of the accounts right from 1950-51 till 1966-67 by referring to the regular income-tax assessment which had been completed by th...

John Peter A. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)2LLJ777Mad

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. This miscellaneous petition is filed to modify the judgment dated April 7, 2005 made in W.A. No. 1475 of 2004 delivered by N.V. Balasubramanian, J. and one of us (P.K. Misra, J.). It came to be posted, before this Division Bench by the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.2. Heard the arguments of Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Miscellaneous Petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') and Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, learned Counsel appearing, for the first respondent (hereinafter referred to' as the 'Management') and have perused the records.3. The main writ petition W.P. No. 4310 of. 2001 was filed by the workman seeking to set aside the order dated October 29, 1998 removing him from the post of Conductor by the Management on medical grounds and also for a direction to provide alternate employment to him with all benefits.4. The workman was working as a Conductor with the Management. While he was serving in the bus, on a ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prasad Productions P. Ltd.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]313ITR120(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The relevant assessment years are 1996-97 to 2001-02. The assessee is a limited company and is engaged in the business activities such as production and exploitation of motion pictures, printing and processing of films in the laboratories owned by the company, erection of sets and recovery of set charges. Recovery charges for video digital (most modern technique) from various cine producers and T.V. serial producers, advertising companies and generation of power through wind mills. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02. The Assessing Officer, relying on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sarasa Movies in I.T.A. No. 157/Mds/96, inter alia, disallowed the claim of the deduction under Section 80HHC on the ground that there was no export sale by the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dismissed the appeal by following the Tribunal's order aforesaid. Aggrieved by ...

Ramanjit Kaur Sethi and ors. Vs. the Central Administrative Tribunal R ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ1134

ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Since all the matters on hand are inextricably interconnected with each other, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. All these writ petitions pertain to the selection of All India Service Officers and Group A and Group B officers in various Government Departments conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. The Civil Services Examination is a combined examination catering to recruitment in more than 20 civil services and it consists of preliminary examination, main examination and interview.3. The Union Public Service Commission has issued a notification dated 4.12.2004 to fill up 457 posts in 21 different cadres. The preliminary examination was conducted on 15.5.2005, the main examination was conducted on 21.10.2005 and interview was held on 7.4.2006 and the select lists were issued on 8.5.2006 and 3.4.2007. The break-up details of the posts as mentioned in the notification is as follows:S. No. Cadre/ Service Total n...

The Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu High Cour ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ680

ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner is the statutory authority under the provisions of Administrators General Act, 1913 (Act 3 of 1913), which is now repealed by Amendment Act of 1963, viz. Administrators General Act, 1963 (45 of 1963), administering the property of C. Kandasamy Naidu Trust, as per the order of Probate dated 5.10.1948 made in O.P. No. 278 of 1948 on the file of this Court probating the Will dated 21.5.1948. It is, therefore, obvious that after the order of probate dated 5.10.1948, referred to above, all property both movable and immovable of the trust vests with the Administrator General and Official Trustee (in brevity 'AGOT').2. The lands belonging to the Trust of an extent of 103 grounds 0796 sq.ft situated in Survey Nos.2930/1, 2930/2, 2931 and 2932/1 of Purasawalkam Village of Madras District were proposed to be acquired by the respondent/Housing Board for a public purpose, viz. Housing scheme by the respondent/Board, for which, a notice under Section 4(1) of...

B. Krishnan Vs. Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Rep. by Chai ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ776

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.07.2002 made in W.P. No. 7416 of 2000, confirming the order in Appeal dated 14.02.2000.2. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that he being a Deputy Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, has reached the age of superannuation as early as 31.05.1995. However, he was not allowed to retire from service by an order dated 29.05.1995 and also he was placed under suspension by another order of the same date, namely, 29.05.1995 that the departmental enquiry was pending.3. The further case of the petitioner is that he was a diploma holder in Sanitary Engineering and was appointed as a Public Works Supervisor in Rasipuram Municipality on 20.04.1960. Thereafter, he was promoted as Municipal Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer on 17.08.1966, 21.10.1970, and 23.07.1980 respectively. Further, he was worked as Deputy Superintending Engineer at Tir...

The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Chie ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ1006

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellants are aggrieved of the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 9.9.2004 passed in W.P. No. 10120 of 1997.2. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order of dismissal dated 23.9.1995. The dismissal order was passed on the respondent, based on the enquiry held into the charges, wherein he was issued with a charge sheet alleging that on 4.8.1992, he received a sum of Rs. 50/- by way of bribe from one Ganesan for giving service connection. He also persuaded the said person to bribe the Junior Engineer by name Murugaiah Joseph for effecting the said service connection.3. By the order impugned in the writ appeal, learned Single Judge set aside the order of dismissal on the only ground that after issuance of second show-cause notice, when the Respondent submitted his detailed explanation, the order of dismissal was passed without considering any of the statements made in the explanation submitted by the respondent. In fact, learned Judge rel...

Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Shri Subirdutta, the Secretary to Governm ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ521

ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.07.2003 in Contempt Application No. 43 of 2003 in O.A. No. 65 of 2002. The first respondent herein has approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 65 of 2002 seeking for the relief of direction to the petitioners to appoint him as Lower Division Clerk on compassionate ground. The first respondent's father had worked as F.G.M. (S.K.) in M.E.S. Tambaram and died in harness on 13.10.94. The first respondent is stated to be the only son. He also by that time passed H.Sc., apart from Typewriting Lower Grade (English). The said O.A. was resisted by the petitioners. However, the Tribunal ultimately disposed of the Original Application, on 11.6.2002 by passing the following Order:3. After hearing the counsel for the applicant, we do not their that we can give direction as prayed for especially when the respondents are not denying the eligibilit...