Chennai Court June 2008 Judgments
Eid Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. M.N. Padmanabhan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: [2008(118)FLR818]; (2008)IIILLJ687Mad
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. Appellant/management has filed this appeal aggrieved over the order, dated December 15, 2000, passed by a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 2573/1994, whereby the order of the second respondent, in rejecting the first respondent/workman's application for making a reference under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was set aside.2. According to the first respondent/workman, he joined service in the appellant company as a Clerk on March 18,1959 and after working at various places, he was lastly posted at Cuddalore Branch in the Farms Inputs Division; he was a member of E.I.D. Parry Staff Association, a registered trade union; he put in 34 years of service; there was a scheme called Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) introduced by the appellant on June 1, 1993, which was available to the employees, who had completed 10 years of service or 40 years of age, which scheme provided for financial assistance besides normal terminal benefits to employees, who opted...
Tag this Judgment!Sujana Universal Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: (2009)23VST107(Mad)
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax) appearing for the respondent, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal even at the admission stage.2. In W.P. No. 2392 of 2008, the assessment order dated December 7, 2007 passed by the respondent to the tune of Rs. 14,09,13,503 including penalty is challenged. In W.P. No. 2393 of 2008, the assessment order dated December 24, 2007 passed to the tune of Rs. 27,74,19,671 including penalty is under challenge. The assessment order dated April 29, 2008 to the tune of Rs. 12,04,10,462 including penalty is challenged in W.P. No. 13457 of 2008.3. In all the impugned orders, it is specifically stated that appeal against the said order can be filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-III, Chennai, within thirty days of receipt of the order. But the petitioner challenged the said assessment orders wi...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. M.A. Bose Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad270
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of declaration declaring that the eligibility criteria fixed in Clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 to admission to the three year higher speciality course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges issued by the third respondent is illegal, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and hence null and void and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for such decree on merits and without reference to petitioner's age in accordance with law.2. Mr. Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Doctor, aged 64 years, completed M.S. Degree in General Surgery in the year 1982 and practising in Virudhunagar District; that he applied for a seat in Mch degree for Neurosurgery/Plastic Surgery in the year 2007 and wrote the entrance examination; that in that discipline, only four seats were available put of ...
Tag this Judgment!Sinhar Estate Builders P. Ltd. and anr. Vs. B. Nataraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2008
Reported in: [2008]144CompCas368(Mad); [2009]89SCL422(Mad)
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 14562 of 1996 on the file of Seventh Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The unsuccessful defendants have preferred this appeal.2. The averments in the plaint sans irrelevant particulars run as follows: The first defendant is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The second defendant is the managing director of the first defendant-company. The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of Adhaye Finance and Investment. For the specific purpose of acquiring an immovable property, the first defendant had borrowed a loan of Rs. 6,00,000 from the plaintiff between the period June 23, 1987 and November 20, 1987, as detailed below:Borrowed AmountDate (Rs.)23-06-1987 50,00007-08-1987 2,75,00022-08-1987 25,00013-11-1987 20,00018-11-1987 50,00020-11-198 71,80,0003. Out of the said amount of Rs. 6,00,000 borrowed from the plaintiff, the first defendant had rep...
Tag this Judgment!Cit Vs. Vignesh Kumar Jewellers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2008
Reported in: (2009)221CTR(Mad)79; [2009]180TAXMAN18(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 27-7-2007 in ITA No. 598/Mad/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02 by raising the following questions of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal by deleting the additions made by the assessing officer relying on the decision of the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is valid 2. The brief facts are as follows:The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners, which is engaged in the business of purchasing gold bullion and converting the same into ornaments and the converted ornaments are exported to Singapore and Dubai. The assessee has filed a return of income on 10-2-2002 admitting the total income of Rs. 47,060. The same was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, a notice dated 22-1-2003 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution/Rural, Tamil Nadu Elect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2008
Reported in: 2009LC(MAD)782
ORDERA. Selvam, J.1. Challenge in this criminal revision case is to the judgment dated 30.12.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2002 by the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court No. I, Tirunelveli, wherein the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No. 171 of 1997 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sankarankovil are set aside.2. The epitome of the prosecution case can be stated like thus;The accused has been running a factory under the name and style of 'Raja Enterprises'. The factory of the accused has given electric service connection and he removed seals from electric meters and put up bogus seals. He has also removed seals from transformer chamber. The accused has made the electric meter not to run and thereby he has stolen electricity and he caused loss to the tune of Rs. 25,15,220/- to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Under the said circumstances, the accused is said to have committed offences under Sections 39(1) and 44(1)(aa) of the Electricity Act, 1910.3. On...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ganaesan an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2008
Reported in: (2008)8MLJ689
M. Venugopal, J.1. The challenge in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, dated 20.04.2004, passed in M.C.O.P. No. 89 of 2003 awarding a compensation of Rs. 91,600/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand and Six Hundred only).2. Dissatisfied with the award passed, the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Tirunelveli/second respondent in the claim petition has filed the present appeal.3. The first respondent/claimant has preferred a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 89 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, claiming a compensation of Rs. 16,70,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Seventy Thousand only) and restricted the same to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).4. The facts of the claim in nutshell are as below:On 20.10.2002, the first respondent/claimant was travelling in the load auto bearing Registration No. TN-72-U-7099 in Vallam village and after ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthulakshmi Through Her Power Agent P. Sakthivel Vs. K. Padmanabhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)CTC91
A. Selvam, J.1. The judgment dated 14.08.2001 passed in Calendar Case No. 284 of 1996 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Rajapalayam is now under challenge.2. The appellant herein as complainant has filed a complaint under Sections 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the trial Court, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole accused.3. In the complaint, it has been specifically stated that the accused has been serving as a teacher and the complainant has been residing in the house of the accused. The accused has received a sum of Rs. 3,08,008/- by way of debt from the complainant and thereby executed a pro-note. On 28.03.1996 both the complainant and the accused have entered into an agreement, whereunder it has been agreed to encash the amounts mentioned in the cheques given by the accused. The cheques given by the accused have been presented in the concerned Bank by the complainant on 27.07.1996 and the same have been returned on 30.07.1996 an...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammed HussaIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2008
Reported in: 2009ACJ2468
P.R. Shivakumar, J.1. The civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award dated 17.1.2002 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Addl. District Judge), Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 287 of 2001 directing the appellant therein to pay a sum of Rs. 1,13,500 as compensation to the respondent No. 1/claimant together with an interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim till payment and with proportionate costs.2. The respondent No. 1 herein, alleging that he met with an accident on 5.10.1998 at about 6 p.m. near Chinnamattarapalli bus stop which resulted in injuries leading to permanent disability, made a claim against the appellant and the respondent No. 2 herein for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000. It was his contention before the Tribunal that the motor cycle belonging to the respondent No. 2 herein bearing registration No. TN 29-U 5604 was the vehicle involved in the accident and that the said motor cycle hit him and ca...
Tag this Judgment!Chendur Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs. Bhandari Interstate Carriers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad218; 2008(44)CTC75; 2008(2)CTLJ169(Mad)
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 1102 of 1989 has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1994 on the file of the I Asst. Judge (I/C III Asst. Judge), City Civil Court, Madras.2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff, as put forth before the Court below, is as under:The plaintiff is a partnership firm carrying on business as Carriers, fleet owners and transport contractors. The defendant approached the plaintiff from Faridabad to its factory at Madras. At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed to accept the consignment and deliver it to the defendant's factory at Madras. The consignment was entrusted to them at Faridabad by M/s. Ammettep Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., to deliver it to the defendant at Madras vide L.R. No. 483647 dated 06.06.1986. Since the truck met with an accident, a meeting was held and it was agreed that a crane would be engaged to lift the consignment from the accident spot. The defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »