Chennai Court June 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.
Chopard Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2008
Reported in: (2009)22VST134(Mad)
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. These writ appeals have been filed challenging an order passed by the learned single judge, dated September 17, 20071. Subject-matter of the challenge was an order passed by the assessing authority under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. We need to consider the merits of the case, as in view of the admitted position against the order of the assessment officer, statutory appeal is provided. We just remind ourselves of the repeated directions given by the apex court that in the revenue matters, the taxing statute itself is a complete code and the writ court should not ordinarily interfere unless the assessee had exhausted all his statutory remedies.3. In view of this well-settled principle, we direct the appellant to file an appeal within a period of three weeks from today before the appellate authority. If the appeal is filed within that period, the appellate authority will consider the appeal on merit by condoning ...
S. Jalajakumari and M. Mookayya Vs. the Personal Assistant (General) t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ1073
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records.2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 07.7.2002 made in O.A. Nos. 423 to 427 of 1997, 1112 of 1997, the State of Tamil Nadu has filed the present writ petitions.3. In W.P. No. 15177 of 2001, the petitioners, viz., S.Jalajakumari and Mookkaya, are challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'Tribunal'] dated 03.7.2001 made in O.A. No. 2031 of 1996. In W.P. Nos. 5031 of 2004 and 23887 of 2004, the petitioner is the same person by name, one Ms. C. Sarasam, challenging the common order of the Tribunal dated 25.3.2004 made in O.A. Nos. 1277 of 1997 and 1905 of 1997. 4. The issue raised in all the writ petitions is that the private individuals who have been appointed to the post of Typists under Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Rules [for short, 'Rules'], are eligible to be regularised in their service. The following is the details regarding th...
M. Sekar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Senior Superintendent of Pos ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ1158
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of learned Counsels for private parties and the learned Assistant Central Government Standing Counsel representing the Union of India and perused the records.2. In all these twenty writ petitions, the question raised is with regard to the procedure for recruitment with reference to the Extra Departmental staff in the Postal Department of the Union of India. The Recruitment Rules (RR) are a compilation of various executive orders and circulars issued by the Postal Department from time to time and they are not statutory in character. Subsequently, the said service was rechristened as Gramin Dak Sevak. Rules have also been framed for the various posts which are known as Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 [for short, 'GDS Rules']. The principle questions raised in these writ petitions are as follows:(a) Whether preference shown to applicants who have scored highest marks in S.S.L.C./ Matriculation when the minimum qualification ...
P. Eswaramoorthy and ors. Vs. R.J.B. Leoraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ694Mad; (2008)5MLJ238
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. W.P. No. 17802 of 1994:2.1. When this matter came up for disposal before the learned single Judge on 31.7.2002, the learned single Judge framed two questions and directed the matter to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for posting the same before an appropriate Division Bench. Accordingly, the matter was posted before this Division Bench on the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The two questions are as follows:1. In matters relating to service conditions of employees of Cooperative Societies, whether the Industrial Disputes Act (Special Law) or the Cooperative Societies Act (General Law) is applicable?2. Whether an employee of a Cooperative Society can invoke the provisions of Section 90 and/or Section 152/153 (Appeal / Revision) for redressal of his service grievances? 2.2. The reason for framing the two issues were an apparent conflict between the decisions rendered...
Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Director of Education, Directorate of Edu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ226
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. Murugesan, learned Government Pleader (Puducherry), assisted by Mr. Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader (Puducherry) representing the Union of India, Government of Puducherry, Ms. R. Vaigai, Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Ms. G. Thilakavathy learned Counsels and Mr. K. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.M.Muthappan appearing for the private parties and perused the records.2. In this batch of writ petitions, the question raised is whether the employment notifications issued by the Government of Puducherry requiring the candidates to produce Certificate of Residence by birth, Certificate of Residence for having residence for the last five years in Puducherry before the date of notification and / or Service Certificate obtained from the respective Head of Office in respect of children / spouse of State Government servants who were working on regular basis as a pre-requisite for considering their applications, is legally permi...
The Leigh Bazaar Merchants Association Ltd. Rep. by Its Secretary, A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: 2008(5)MhLj1504
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.1996 made in O.S. No. 285 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem.2. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was filed against the order dated, 11.04.1986 passed by the Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Chennai, the first respondent herein in A.P. No. 49 of 1982, seeking a decree for setting aside the order, and for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents herein not to interfere with the management of the affairs of the suit temple.3. According to the appellants, the first appellant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, being managed by its Board of Directors, elected as per Rules and Regulations of the Company and represented by its elected Secretary. The first appellant has stated that the Company is a welfare organisation, started for the protection and promotion of the trading interest of its members, as per its Articles and Memorandum of ...
K. Palraj Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4236
K.N. Basha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, dated 23.10.2007 made in S.C. No. 218 of 2006 convicting the sole accused, Palraj, under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.2. The facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:(i) P.W. 1 is the friend of the deceased and both of them were working at Annoore IDPL Company. The accused, Palraj, came to the Company, where the deceased and P.W.I were working, and demanded Rs. 20,000/-, which was received by the deceased as loan. P.W.1 and others advised the accused not to give trouble in the office and P.W. 1 also informed the father of the deceased, P.W.5, about the q...
N. Nagarajan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ4625
K.N. Basha, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Chengalpat, dated 12-12-2001 made in SC No. 122 of 1999 convicting the sole accused, Nagarajan, for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment.2. The occurrence in this case is shown to have taken place on 26-11-1997 at 6.30 p.m. at the house of the accused at Door No. 1/1435, Second Anna Street, Gandhi Nagar, Sengunram, within the limits of Chozhavaram Police Station.3. The charge against the accused is that suspecting the fidelity of his wife, the deceased Usha, the accused tied a rope on her neck and hanged her from the roof which resulted in the death of the deceased and thereby said to have committed the offence under Section 302, IPC.4. In order to substantiate the case, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 13, filed Exs. P. 1 to P.27 besides marking M.Os. 1 and 2.5. The accused faced the trial under the following b...
N. Mohammed Mohideen and Sahana Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: (2009)ILLJ177Mad; (2008)5MLJ6
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The short question that arises in these two writ petitions is whether the third respondent in each of the writ petitions are entitled to get maternity benefit in respect of the maternity leave availed by them for delivering their third child.3. Special care and assistance for motherhood is one of the basic human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Provisions for maternity protection is one of the programmes which is being furthered by the ILO on a worldwide basis. In pursuance of this objection the ILO has adopted two Conventions No. 3 and 103 and a recommendation No. 95 concerning Maternity Protection. Of these, Convention No. 3 was adopted in the very first of its constitutions. India subscribes to the principles contained in these instruments though it might not have ratified the conventions. It is one of the directive principles of State policy cont...
Al. Ramanathan Amutha and Co. Vs. the Government of India Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ888
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.C1/61031/2003 dated 29.04.2005 and to consequentially direct the respondents to exclude the lands comprised in T.S. Nos. 249/1-A, 249/1-B, 253/2-A and 245/1-B at Old W. No. 3, New W. No. C-Block, No. 4, Srirangam Town, Tiruchirappalli District from acquisition proceedings.2. The petitioner is the lessee of the land comprised in T.S. No. 249/1- B owned by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ('IOCL' for short). The said land houses a Petrol and Diesel Fuel Station the dealership of which is given to the petitioner by IOCL. Beside this land, the petitioner owns lands in three survey nos. While the petitioner and IOCL have jointly invested about Rs. 1 crore for the establishment of the Petrol and Diesel Fuel Station, the petitioner has also invested about Rs. 10 lakhs in the Service Station housed near the Petrol and Diesel Fuel Station in addition to constructing a two storeyed buil...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »