Chennai Court March 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S. Vimala Vs. the Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ11
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The issues involved in these cases are similar and therefore, these writ petitions are taken together.2. W.P. Nos. 25055 and 28370 of 2007 are filed by the same person, viz., Mrs. S. Vimala, who is the Chairperson of Madambakkam Town Panchayat. Likewise, the petitioner M. Asokan has filed W.P. Nos. 31336 and 35442 of 2007. 3. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 25055 and 28370 of 2007 was a duly elected Chairperson of Madambakkam Town Panchayat in the year 2006, by 15 Members of the Council, wherein the petitioner is also a Member. The petitioner was declared as elected Chairperson for a period of five years, since she was supported by 9 persons out of 15. G.O. Ms. No. 2048 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (TP1) Department dated 08.12.2003, impugned in W.P. No. 25055 of 2007, appending notification issued by the Governor of Tamil Nadu by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 3-M of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (in short, 'the Act') m...
A. Uma Rani D/O. K. Arunachalam Vs. the District Collector and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ11
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.2. The facts giving rise to the writ petitions are as follows:The petitioner in W.P. No. 195 of 2001 was appointed as Part Time clerk under Thippasamudram Panchayat. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued by the President of the Panchayat Board containing several allegations. However, no reply was received from the petitioner and thereafter by order dated 26.5.2000, such petitioner was terminated from service, which is to the following effect: (As per English translation)While you were working as a part time clerk in Thippasamudram panchayat, you have committed some offences. So on the approval of the panchayat explanation was called for on 13.05.2000 by registered post and the same was returned. Since you have refused second time also, notice was sent and no reply was received, inspite of the affixtures also no reply. You have not written the panchayat accounts properly. You have been disturbing the funct...
A. Kaliyappan Vs. District Collector and Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ81
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the notification issued by the first respondent, District Collector, Salem under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (in short, 'Act 31/78') in respect of the land to an extent of 1.19.0 hectares comprised in Survey Nos. 64/2B2, 67/1B and 67/2 in Athanoorpatty Village, Vazhapadi Taluk, Salem District.2. According to the petitioner, the property was sold to one Raja Chettiar in the year 1980, from whom he borrowed money and the sale was effected as indemnity for the loan and after the amount was repaid, it was by a registered document, resale was effected on 8.6.1995. The patta was transferred by the Revenue Department on 12.4.1996. Adangal and chitta also disclose that the petitioner is in possession of the above said property. It is, by communication dated 20.8.1998, the petitioner was directed to hand over possession before 7.9.1998 and thereafter, he came to know tha...
G.P. Venkatesa Mudaliar Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2009)2MLJ702
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. All the above petitions are filed challenging the Property Tax Notice for Current Demand and Arrear Demand. 2. All the petitioners in the above writ petitions are owners of the land mentioned in the writ petitions. For the purpose of calculation of property tax, the annual rental value was fixed and a half yearly tax was also being collected from the petitioners. However, the respondent issued a notice proposing to revise the fair rent and consequently proposing to collect a half yearly tax and such a proposal to revise the tax was to take effect retrospectively. Notices were served on the petitioners. The petitioners sent a detailed reply by way of objection to the respondent and the same are still pending. The petitioners have not received any reply from the respondent so far. However, the respondent in his property tax notice claimed current demand and arrear demand. Aggrieved against such impugned notice, the petitioners approached this Court by way of writ...
Ultra Tech Cement Limited Vs. the Secretary to Government, Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2008
Reported in: (2008)16VST481(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Arokanam Village, Vellore District and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated December 29, 2006 and February 8, 2007 and pass orders on the continuance of the waiver scheme of the deed of the agreement, dated July 12, 2006 entered into between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the petitioner and for further orders.2. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cement, carrying on its manufacturing activities in 10 plants located in various parts of the country, including manufacturing unit at Arakonam Village, Vellore District. The said unit was established, pursuant to the package of incentives given by the State vide G.O.Ms. No. 500, Industries (MIG-II) Department, dated May 14, 1990, whereby, the State directed, inter alia, that the new industries set up in 30 most back...
The Management of Hindustan Lever Limited, Rep. by the Branch Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)4MLJ214
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.06.2000 made in W.P. No. 4168 of 1992, which was filed seeking a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Case No. TSE Case No. 7/89 and to quash his order dated 25.07.1991.2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is as follows:The appellant/writ petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of soaps and detergents. It has its Branch Office at Madras which caters to sale of goods in Southern States. The appellant/Management has appointed re-distribution stockists in various locations. The stockists operate their units in the vicinity of their locations. Every unit will cover about 40 retailers/wholesalers in a day. The appellant/Management posts Territory Sales Incharge (TSI) with headquarters in important cities and each TSI will have a specified territory to look after as his responsibility. There will be about 8 to 10 stockists under the control of...
K. Anandhi Vs. District Educational Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)6MLJ893
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in W.P. No. 3455 of 2004 is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent School to fill up the vacancy of B.T. Assistant in History in PLWA Higher Secondary School, Vikramasinghapuram, Tirunelveli District.2. In W.P. No. 4467 of 2004, petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 122032/G6/02, dated 12.2.2004 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents to approve the promotion of the petitioner to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) in the third respondent school with effect from 1.6.1997 and grant all consequential benefits.3. The subject matter in both the writ petitions relates to promotion to the post of B.T. Assistant (History) in the Papanasam Labour Welfare Association Higher Secondary School, Vikramasingapuram. Hence both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties i...
Scm Creations Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)218CTR(Mad)126
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The two appeals are filed by the assessee relating to the asst. year. 2002-03 and 2003-04. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of hosiery garments.2. The issue involved in these two appeals are whether the relief under Section 80-IA should be deducted from profits and gains of business before computing relief under Section 80HHC.3. The Counsel on either side submits that the issue had to be decided in favour of the assessee, as this Court already, by following the decision of CIT v. V. Chinnapandi : [2006]282ITR389(Mad) , has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in Tax Case No. 344 of 2004 reported as Dy. CIT v. Chola Textiles (P) Ltd. (2008) 218 CTR (Mad) 123-Ed., wherein this Court has held as follows:5. It is submitted across the Bar by the learned Counsel appearing for either side that the very issue has been considered and held against the Revenue by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of J.P. ...
Lakshmi Srinivas Savings and Chit Funds Syndicate Private Limited Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2008
Reported in: IV(2008)BC198
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 29.3.1996 made in O.S. No. 156 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Uthagamandalam.2. The appellant herein was the plaintiff before the trial Court. The suit was filed against the respondent herein, directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 70,100/- with subsequent interest and costs.3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, on 10.11.1991, the respondent herein had borrowed a sum of Rs. 44,000/- from the appellant at Uthagamandalam and executed the suit promissory note, marked as Exhibit A-3, promising to repay the amount with 24% interest. According to the appellant, subsequently, no amount was paid by the respondent and hence, the appellant filed the suit, seeking decree against the respondent herein.4. According to the respondent, he had not borrowed any amount from the appellant and executed the promissory note, as alleged by the appellant. He has further contended that the respondent was a subscr...
G.M., T.N. State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Udayasuriyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR815]; (2008)IIILLJ538Mad
A.P. Shah, C.J.1. Heard Mr. R. Parthiban, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. The challenge in the appeal is to the order of the learned single Judge directing the appellant to give alternative employment to the respondent in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (Act 1 of 1996)(hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act).2. The respondent was originally] employed as a driver in the Pallavan Transport Corporation. During the year 1985, he was transferred to the appellant Corporation with continuity of service and same conditions of service. It appears that in all State owned Transport Corporations including the appellant Corporation drivers are sent for eye checkup every year on attaining the age of 40 years. Based on that procedure the respondent was sent to eye checkup, and wherein he was referred to Medical Board. The Medical Board finally opined that the respon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »