Chennai Court March 2008 Judgments

Beekey Enterprises Vs. Quarantine Officer (Sr) Chennai the State of Ta ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(127)ECC137; 2008(153)LC137(Madras); 2008(228)ELT182(Mad)

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. I have heard the arguments of Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. S.S. Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the respondents and have perused the records.2. The writ petitioner is a proprietory concern and being aggrieved by the order of the first respondent Quarantine Officer in passing an order dated 19.4.2007 wherein and by which permission for clearing the consignment of Pig Bristles was refused on the ground of outbreak of Avian Influenza in the People's Republic of China. The consignment was in respect of a Bill of Entry No. 436649 dated 11.4.2007.3. The petitioner claims to be a trader in supply of Processed Pig Bristles to the manufacturers of paint brushes since August 2006. It is stated that all the manufacturers of paint brushes procure the Pig Bristles from various parts of the world including the People's Republic of China. The Government of...

N. Palaniappan Vs. the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Chief Secretary to ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)3MLJ1382

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the second respondent dated 20.03.98, under which the second respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of Freedom Fighter's Pension as per the Pension Scheme on the basis that the Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is general in nature and it is not a certificate issued by a co-prisoner. According to the second respondent, the petitioner has not obtained certificate from approved co-prisoner and in view of the same, the impugned order came to be passed.2. On the face of it, it is the most unfortunate case, wherein, the second respondent instead of taking a pragmatic approach has only taken a technical stand for the purpose of denying the legitimate right of a person who has fought for the country in the freedom struggle for which there are abundant records, but taking impossible grounds.3. The case of the petitioner is that he is aged 82 years and he has participated in the in...

P. Venkatesan Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Secretary to Governme ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ211

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The issue involved in this case is covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Balasubramanian, dated 06.08.2007, passed in W.P. No. 21208 of 2004, in Ravichand and Anr. v. The Secretary, Home Department, State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.2. The G.O.Ms. No. 637, Home (Courts. IIA) Department, dated 06.07.02, which was impugned in the said writ petition is the same G.O. which is impugned in the present writ petition, however, in respect of the property of the petitioner viz., No. 5, Flowers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 84, comprised in R.S. No. 40/22 which was attached by way of an interim order of attachment under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (herein after referred to as the 'Act').3. According to the petitioner, the property absolutely belonged to him. However, the second respondent Competent Authority/Joint Commissioner of Land Administration, without any order of the Competent Court has...

Md. Abbas Mohideen Vs. Government of India Rep. by Secretary to Govern ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)IILLJ587Mad

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. I have heard the arguments of Mr. G. Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. S. Thiruvenkataswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. P. Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. K. Kanna, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents 5 to 8 and have perused the records.2. The petitioner in this petition challenges the order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the second respondent wherein and by which he was given the sentence of dismissal from the Coast Guard.3. The petitioner joined the Coast Guard as an Assistant Commandant (Technical) which is Class I Group A Cadre, on 06.8.1989. On completion of his training and probation, he was posted to work in several Ships in the Western Command. Thereafter, he joined the Eastern Command on Board C.G.S. Jija Bai stationed near the Paradeep Port on 12.8.1993. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent was the Commanding O...

The Management of Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Paper Mills Vs. the Workmen ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR380]; (2008)IILLJ906Mad; (2008)3MLJ1080

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Both these appeals are challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 247 of 1991, dated 17.2.2000, while Writ Appeal No. 838 of 2000 has been filed by the Management, Writ Appeal No. 335 of 2001 is filed by the Workmen Association.2. One V. Subramanian was employed as an Equipment Operator in the Management. On the allegation that he had assaulted one R. Kalyanasundaram, server in the TNPL Staff Mess, on 8.12.1984 at about 8.00 a.m. and based on the complaint of the said R. Kalyanasundaram, a charge memo. was issued to the said V. Subramanian. Thereupon, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the delinquent Officer Mr. V. Subramanian, the Management has conducted enquiry, by appointing a retired District Judge as the Enquiry Officer. Before the Enquiry Officer, the Management has examined four witnesses as M.Ws. 1 to 4 and on behalf of the workman, three witnesses were examined as W.Ws. 1 to 3. Further, on beha...

Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group Represented by Its Trustee Mr. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K. SAMPATH J. The prayer in the complaint runs as follows: - To pass an order directing (a) the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs as damages to the State Consumer Welfare Fund for the deficiency in service in not clearing the garbage in the area allotted to it from 25/8/2007 till 28/8/2007 and on every day when the default continued ; (b) to install adequate number of garbage bins to and recruit adequate number of personnel not being lesser than the numbers recruited by ONYX the earlier contractor to clear garbage and Municipal wastes in the areas allotted to it in the Chennai Corporation ; and (c) to grant such further or other orders as this Honble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case on the following allegations :- The complainant is a registered Trust working towards protecting the citizens rights in consumer and environmental issues. The 1st respondent representing the Chennai Corporation which is under a statutory obligation to ensure that th...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008]303ITR33(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These appeals are filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 22.06.2007 in ITA Nos. 2021, 2022, 2051 and 2052/Mds/2005 for the Assessment Years 2000-2001 and 2001-2001 respectively.2. The common question of law formulated for entertainment of these appeals are as follows:Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amenity charges received in respect of let out property should be treated as income from other sources?.3. The appeals relate to the assessment years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. The assessee is a company. In respect of the relevant assessment years, the assessee treated the amenity charges received from the properties owned by the assessee as income from business. The Assessing Officer, treated the entire amount as income from house property. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (App...

Avtec Limited Power Products Division Rep. by Its Authorised Signatory ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2008(119)FLR562]; (2008)4MLJ50

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition for direction against respondents 1 to 3, who are the Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, to give full police protection to the petitioner Company against the alleged illegal action of the respondents 4 to 12, who are the members of the Union of workers belonging to the writ petitioner and other workers, so as to enable the petitioner Company to enjoy the order of interim injunction granted by the Sub-Court, Hosur in I.A. No. 100 of 2007 in O.S. No. 54 of 2007 on 09.06.2007, which was made absolute on 21.11.2007.2. When the matter came up for admission, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate, who has taken notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to find out the actual position of the case. On 07.12.2007, the learned Government Advocate, on oral instructions from the second respondent has submitted that in the writ pet...

Ashok Kumar Vs. K. Sabarinathan,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(2)CTC483; (2008)4MLJ762

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by third party, auction purchaser, against judgment dated 20th Sept., 2001, passed by learned single Judge in A.S. No. 1034/86. By the said judgment, learned Judge, while dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, the miscellaneous petition preferred by the appellant herein for impleading him as a party respondent to the said appeal was also rejected.2. The only question that arise for consideration in this case is whether the appellant was a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the appeal suit in question.3. For determination of the aforesaid issue, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties in the suit, except the relevant ones as noticed hereunder :-A suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 14th May, 1973, being O.S. No. 2549/81, was filed by the 1st respondent, K.Sabarinathan against the husband of the 2nd respondent, Jeya...

Nachammal, Vs. Sadasivam,

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)4MLJ1130

R. Banumathi, J.1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the deceased Thangavel in a road traffic accident on 12.09.1998 wife, children and mother of the deceased have filed this Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.2. Brief facts which are relevant for disposal of this Appeal are as follows:On 12.9.1998 - 7.30p.m. the deceased Thangavel was riding his bi-cycle from west to east near Chennimalai Police Station on the left side of the road. At that time, the lorry bearing registration No. KA-01-A 2057 coming from behind in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased and the deceased was thrown off and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the deceased was 45 years old and he was running a tea stall and he was owning 10 hand looms. He was also doing agriculture by owning 5 acres of land by doing personal cultivation. Alleging that the accident was due to rash an...