Chennai Court April 2008 Judgments

K. Ganesan Vs. the Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporati ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)5MLJ787

ORDER:During the budget session, held on 27-4-1981, the Minister (Transport) announced interalia in the Legislative Assembly that the workers who are declared unfit for continuance in the same posts by Doctors, while in service, because of eye defect or any other ailments, will be provided with alternative employment in posts like 'Helpers', 'afresh' depending upon their qualifications, experience and suitability for the new post, after settling their service benefits.2. The Government accordingly direct that the workers in State Transport Undertakings who are declared unfit for continuance in the same posts, by doctors, while in service, because of eye defect or any other ailment, be discharged on medical grounds and their service benefits, settled. They should be subsequently provided with alternative employment in posts like 'Helpers' depending upon their qualification and experience and suitability the new posts, without consulting the Employment Exchange. They should be appointed ...

The Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul and Another Vs. M.S.541, ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. 1. The opposite parties in C.O.P.No.96/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dindigul, are the appellants herein. The short point for consideration in the appeal is whether the complainant could be entitled to interest on Kisan Vikas Patra purchased by them from the opposite parties. The Kisan Vikas Patras were four in number. The first one was dated 22/11/1996 for Rs.10,000/- the maturity date being 22/05/2002 and maturing amount being Rs.20,000/-. The second one was dated 22/11/1996 for Rs.10,000/- repayable on 22/05/2002 in a sum of Rs.20,000/-. The third patra was dt.23/04/1997 also for Rs.10,000/- repayable on 23/10/2002 in Rs.20,000/-. The fourth one was dated 08/12/1997 for Rs.10,000/- repayable on 08/06/2003 in Rs.20,000/-. 2. The defence set up was that as per G.S.R.119(E) published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary part II Section 3 Sub-Section ( i ) dt.08/03/95 of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Econom...

Vijayshanthi Builders Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director, Chennai and Ano ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. 1. The opposite parties in O.P.No.293/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) are the appellants herein. 2. Though they filed vakalat through counsel and also filed their version they did not further participate in the proceedings and ultimately suffered an ex-parte order. Challenging the final order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. In the memorandum of grounds on behalf of the appellants/ opposite parties, it is stated that the District Forum had erroneously observed that the opposite parties did not appear after filing version that they had indeed filed their proof affidavit and a document dt.13/12/1999 wherein they had clearly set out their case that the District Forum ought to have taken into consideration the proof affidavit and the said document that there was non-application of mind on the part of the District Forum. There are several other points raised in the memorandum of grounds which we are not adverting to f...

K.Dharmaraj Vs. the Branch Manager Ashok Leyland Finance, Tiruchy and ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. 1. The complainant in O.P.No.36/2004 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruvarur, is the appellant herein. The short facts leading to the appeal are as under:- (a) The complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement with the opposite parties and availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- for purchase of a two wheeler on 05/03/2002. He issued 12 post dated cheques each for Rs.2,396/-. There was dishonour of some of the cheques with the result, the opposite parties demanded additional finance charges of Rs.1,091/-. According to the complainant, all the cheques had been honoured and the opposite party were not agreeing to have the hire purchase agreement terminated. The complainant sent a notice through lawyer on 22/12/2003. The opposite parties responded stating that there was a sum of Rs.1,091/- as additional finance charges due and unless that was paid the complainant could not have termination of the hire purchase agreement. The complainant came forwa...

D. Prakasam Vs. State

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3471

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant, sole accused in Sessions Case No. 93 of 2007, questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, by judgment dated 9-10-2007, has preferred this appeal.2. The charge against the appellant is that on 16-10-2005 at about 8.30 p.m., with an intention to cause the death of one Mathiazhagan alias Mathi, went to Mathiazhagan's house with his son Sathishkumar and hit Mathiazhgan's head with a fire wood and thereby caused his death and thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.3. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded by the oral and documentary evidence, is stated thus:(a) P.W. 1, P.W. 2, the deceased Mathiazhagan alias Mathi and the accused Prakasam, all are retired ex-service men. They all reside at Kattupudur village, Vellore Taluk. The deceased Mathiazhagan alias Mathi is the cousin brother of P.W. 1. The deceased Mathiazhagan was having a brother by name Murali, who is no more. P.W. 6...

N. Rengaraj Vs. P. Dhamodarasamy

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2009]319ITR216(Mad)

T. Sudanthiram, J.1. The appellant herein is the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore and this appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore in C. C. No. 856 of 2000 acquitting the accused under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code for non-appearance of the complainant.2. The learned special public prosecutor submitted that the complaint was filed against the accused for offence punishable under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. After complaint being filed, process was issued to the accused on January 29, 2001, and the accused also made his appearance on March 7, 2001.3. The learned special public prosecutor submitted that on August 3, 2001, the learned Magistrate passed an order acquitting the accused erroneously invoking the provisions under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The offence under Section 276C(2) is punishable for a maximum period of three years and as such, the procedure to be adopted is...

John George Proprietor M/S. Crystal, Chennai Vs. M/S. Get It Informe D ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

K.SAMPATH J. The complainant in COP No.85/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: - The complainant, carrying on business under the name and style M/s.Crystal in sales and service of computer and accessories, entered into a contract with the opposite party on 23/10/2001 for an advertisement in the Yellow Pages for the year 2002 providing that the advertisement would appear in B2C [Business to Consumer] book. Instead of the advertisement appearing in B2C book it appeared in B2B [Business to Business]. Thus the complainant had been deprived of the advertisement reaching 7 lakh customers as represented by the opposite party. According to the opposite party based on a market feed back it was found that all the persons who were coming under the category of Computer Accessories and Supplies wanted to be in B2B and not in B2C; that they sent a letter to the ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Jagdish Gagual Rangwani

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2004-05. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VII at Chennai dt. 8th July, 2005 and arises out of the proceedings completed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee in this case is an employee of a foreign company, by name, Pershing LLC. The assessee was deputed to India to work as Chief Operating Officer of Inautix Technologies India (P) Ltd., an affiliate to Pershing LLC. The assessee continued to be the employee of Pershing LLC and he drew his remuneration from Pershing LLC for the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal.3. The employer of the assessee failed to deduct tax at source as a result of which the assessee discharged his entire tax liability that arose in India. The assessee was also liable to pay interest under Section 201 (1A) to the tune of Rs. 2.49 lakhs. This interest amount was, however, paid up by the employer. The assessee had also filed his...

Sakthi Masala Private Ltd. Rep. by Its Manager M. Nachiyappan Vs. the ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(129)ECC24; 2008(155)LC24(Madras); (2008)6MLJ80

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the show cause notice issued by the second respondent dated 04.10.2007, under which the second respondent has directed the petitioner to show cause to the Commissioner of Central Excise, as to why the goods, viz., (i) 'SAKTHI'/'STC' branded Bajji Bonda Powder should not be classified under Sub Heading 2108.99 of erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 and 2106.9099 of the present First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (ii) the goods viz., 'SAKTHI'/'STC' branded Tamarind Rice Powder, Lemon Rice Powder, Garlic Rice Powder, Dhall Powder and Chilly Chutney Powder should not be classified under Sub Heading 2103.90 of erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 and 2103.9040 of the present First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; (iii) as to why the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act,1944 should not be invoked and Centr...

Neyveli Lignite Corporation Rep. by Its Secretary Vs. the Neyveli Lign ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)5MLJ1146

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed to forbear the respondents from taking possession of the lands of the members of the petitioner Sangam without complying with arrangement dated 13.10.1997.2. The writ petitioner Sangam was started to protect the rights of the persons who had handed over the lands to the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (in short, 'NLC'), so as to enable it to develop its second stage of excavation. According to the petitioner Sangam, its members were called upon to receive the sums awarded for their lands acquired and to vacate and hand over the sites for the excavation. The case of the petitioner Sangam is that an understanding was reached between its members and the respondents, by which the first respondent has agreed,(i) that the Villagers will form a society for the purpose of applying for tenders so as to give employment to the farmers who had given up their lands;(ii) that the persons will be given employment initially as temporary workers and ther...