Chennai Court March 2008 Judgments
A. Narayana Pillai Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ503
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The agricultural lands to an extent of 2.55 acres and 0.05 acres in Athikaripatti village and Udayapatti village, Salem Taluk respectively, belonging to the petitioner were acquired for the purpose of putting up a Government High School. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, 'the Act') was issued on 28.12.1977 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 7.10.1980 and award was passed on 13.7.1981 in Award No. 2/81. The acquisition proceedings challenged by the petitioner have ultimately been dismissed in W.A. No. 183 of 1983, which has become final.2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the competent Court for enhancement of compensation, which was rejected on 31.12.1993, against which W.P. No. 20681 of 1994 was filed which came to be allowed on 22.4.1999, directing to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act and in spite of several representations, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!P. Balamani and A. Saraswathi Vs. the District Magistrate and District ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: 2008(2)CTC555; (2008)4MLJ22
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. These Writ Petitions have been filed by Balamani and Saraswathi respectively, challenging the proceedings of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Coimbatore, dated 10.04.2007.2. Since the issued involved in both the writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. Petitioners case in both the petitions is as follows:a. They own agricultural punja lands to an extent of 1.33.5 acres comprised in S. No. 308/1 of K. Ayyampalayam, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District and they do not own any other agricultural land other than the said lands. Both of them purchased the lands in the same survey number out of the total extent of 2.67 acres in the year1996. To eke out their livelihood, they commenced construction of a poultry shed in their lands. Their husbands are retired employes of a mill and they have no independent income and their families are depending upon the aforesaid agricultural land to lead a peaceful life. The length of...
Tag this Judgment!G. Rajagopal Vs. Superintending Engineer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR313]
K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.2005 in A.S. No. 24 of 2002 on the file of Principal District Judge, Madurai whereby the learned Principal District Judge? partly reversed the judgment and decree dated 21.6.1999 in O.S. No. 587 of 1997 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Madurai.2. The appellant as plaintiff filed a Suit in O.S. No. 587 of 1997 before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai for a decree of declaration that he is the adopted son of Thiru. Govindarajulu and Subbulakshmi and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to provide employment to him in the Tamil Nadu Pleclricily Hoard by way of compassionate appointment.3. In the plaint in O.S, No. 587 of 1.997, it is the case of the appellant that he is the natural son of G. Radhakrishnan and Mecna, respondents 3 and 4 in the present appeal. The appellant was adopted by Govindarajulu and his wife Subbulakshmi, respondent No. 5 in the present ...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Kumar Vs. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. by Its Chairman,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ919
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. D. Hari Paranthaman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and S. Ravindran, learned Counsel appearing for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., for the respondents and have perused the records.2. The petitioner was working as the Chief Manager in the Nungambakkam Branch of the first respondent from 01.8.2004 to 11.4.2006. He submitted his resignation letter dated 07.4.2006 to the first respondent through his branch. The reason for resignation was stated to be compelling domestic and personal problems. Since the petitioner wanted to leave the service immediately, he also requested to waive the three months' notice period and to grant relief immediately. If the respondents are not willing to waive the notice period, he had requested that three months' salary in lieu of notice can be adjusted from the terminal benefits payable to him. Since there was no response till 11.4.2006, he handed over the charge to the Senior Manager of Nungambakkam Bran...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kanchana Vs. the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by Its Chief Engineer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ902
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. D. Hari Paranthaman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and M. Vaidhyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30.6.2003 wherein and by which she was informed that the scheme for providing employment assistance on account of any death of the Board employee has certain pre-conditions. With reference to the petitioner's case, her husband, who was working as a Wireman, passed away on 12.10.1999. Her application was dated 05.5.2003 and she was eligible to apply for employment assistance provided she should have had the educational qualification of a pass in VIIIth Standard. If that was taken into account, she should have made an application before 11.10.2002 and even if she had applied during that period, as she had not passed VIIIth Standard, no action could be taken in respect of her request.3. It is an admitted case that the petitioner had stu...
Tag this Judgment!Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Rep. by Its General Manager (Finance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)220CTR(Mad)347; [2008]302ITR275(Mad); [2009]177TAXMAN311(Mad)
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. Narayanasamy representing Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents and have perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the first respondent dated 17.7.2007 wherein and by which notice was given to reopen the assessment for the year 2000-2001. It is stated in the impugned order that they had received information from the Enforcement Directorate through proper channel which shows possible inflation of purchases on certain items. The following three information are furnished in the impugned order.(i) Transaction between M/s SIIL and Oasis International for import of drawings and designs - Standard Chartered Bank reported that SIIL have failed to file the bills of entry. The charges have been corroborated by examining the bills of lading from BPT which prove ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kamalam Vs. K.K. Kumarasamy S/O. Kuppusamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC373; 2008(2)CTC177
C. Nagappan, J.1. The defendant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.3.1995 passed in O.S. No. 200 of 1990 by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.2. The respondent herein filed the suit seeking for a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 74,800/- with future interest and costs. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 55,000/- from the plaintiff for her business and family expenses on 30.3.1987 and executed the suit pronote agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and the defendant did not repay any amount either towards principal or interest inspite of demand and the defendant was doing business and hence the interest was claimed at the rate of 12% per annum in the suit.3. The defendant, in the written statement, has denied the plaint allegation that she borrowed a sum of Rs. 55,000/- and executed the suit promissory note and stated that the suit promissory note was executed under th...
Tag this Judgment!Kathirvelu Vs. Anbazhagan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ39
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1995 made in O.S. No. 38 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Chidambaram. 2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in the suit before the trial court. According to the appellant, the respondent having borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,000/- on 01.03.1991, executed the suit promissory note, Ex.A.1, agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest at 18% p.a. Subsequently, the amount was not repaid and thereby the loan was not discharged. Hence, the appellant filed the suit seeking a decree against the respondent directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 47,100/- with interest on the principal amount Rs. 35,000/-at 18% p.a. and also for the costs. 3. The respondent herein as defendant has submitted in his written statement that he had not borrowed any amount from the appellant and executed the suit promissory note, as alleged by the appellant. According to him, he was only a subscriber of Chit Fund (P) Ltd., B...
Tag this Judgment!Veppalodai Salt Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: (2008)17VST348(Mad)
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. The orders under challenge in these writ petitions are the orders passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in assessment orders CST 466175/2000-01 and CST 466175/2001-02 dated July 31, 2007, which were received by the petitioner on August 20, 2007. These writ petitions are filed to quash these orders and to direct the second respondent to pass orders as per the clarifications of the first respondent by giving an opportunity of personal hearing.2. According to the petitioner, they are the registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and an assessee on the file of the second respondent. They are the manufacturer of common salt. They purchase the salt within the State and sell it within the State and claim exemption on the sales of common salt under Sl. No. 7 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. It is their further case that the second respondent checked their accounts for the purpose of final assessment an...
Tag this Judgment!Usha and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2424
G. Rajasuria, J.1. This appeal is focused as against the judgment and decree dated 12.7.2000 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 92 of 1999 by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-First Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.2. Heard both sides.3. The Tribunal vide judgment dated 12.7.2000 awarded compensation to a tune of Rs. 5,15,000 (rupees five lakh fifteen thousand) under the following sub-heads:For loss of income Rs. 5,04,000For funeral expenses Rs. 1,000For loss of love andaffection Rs. 5,000For loss of consortium Rs. 5,000------------Total Rs. 5,15,000------------4. Adverting to the meagre compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the appellants-claimants preferred this appeal on the following main grounds:The Tribunal fell into error in deducting more than 1/3rd of the monthly income of the deceased in assessing the compensation. The Tribunal also awarded under various other sub-heads cited supra meagre compensation. Accordingly, they prayed for enhancement of compensation.5. The...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »