Chennai Court September 2008 Judgments

Varuni Biomass Energy Products Private Ltd. Represented by Its Directo ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)19VST484(Mad)

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides and perused the records.2. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 3847 and 4378 of 2008 is M/s. Varuni Biomass Energy Products Private Ltd. The petitioner in W.P.5324 of 2008 is the brother of M/s. K.K. Surendranath and K.K. Gnanaprabakaran, who are the Directors of the petitioner company in the other two writ petitions.3. Writ Petition No. 3847 of 2008 is to challenge the auction notice issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nilakottai, dated 12.03.2008, wherein by which the petitioner company's properties were brought to sale.4. In W.P. 4378 of 2008 is to set aside the order dated 26.03.2008 approving the highest bid in the auction held on 19.03.2008 and consequent sale certificate dated 21.04.2008 issued in the name of one K. Govindaraj, who is the successful auction bidder and contesting respondent herein.5. W.P.5324 OF 2008 is filled by the petitioner to challenge the auction notice dated 12.03.2008, sale confirmation dated 26.03.2008 and the sale...

Singaraj, Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Govern ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)1MLJ416

K. Chandru, J.1. The petitioners in all these four writ petitions are unfortunate fathers of their respective minor children who were crushed to death while playing near the 5th respondent school gate on 29.04.2005 and in the case of minor Gopinath on 1.05.2005.2. The W.P.8285 of 2005, the petitioner's minor son Ganapathy @ Chinnapar was eight years old at the time of the accident and he was studying IV std in the fifth respondent school. In W.P.8369 of 2005, the petitioner's minor son was Mariappan, who was also eight years old and was studying in the third respondent school. In W.P.8644 of 2005, the petitioner's son was minor Karupasamy and he was seven years old and was studying III standard in the fifth respondent school. In W.P.10476 of 2005, the petitioner's son was Gopinath and he was six years old and studying I Standard in the fifth respondent school.3. The fifth respondent school is an elementary school at Seithur and it is an aided private school. In sofar as the salaries of...

S. Marimuthu Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endo ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)2MLJ1018

ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides and perused the records.2. This writ petition raises two interesting questions of law. They are:(i) Whether the Commissioner or any of his subordinates can decide the question of right to the office of trusteeship on the basis of a Will left by a testator?.and(i)Whether the meaning of the term acting 'adverse to the interest of the institution' as found in Section 26(1)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act (for short HR&CE; Act) will include all institutions or only the particular institution concerned?3. The writ petition is filed by one S.Marimuthu against the order passed by the first respondent (HR&CE; Commissioner) dated 27.11.2006 in allowing the appeal filed by the third respondent against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, (second respondent) dated 31.03.2006. The matter relates to appointment of an hereditary trustee to the Arulmighu Mariamman Temple at Iruggangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar Distric...

Indian Bank Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2008)18VST562(Mad)

ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. The petitioner-bank has filed this writ petition to issue certiorarified mandamus to quash Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 1 dated January 5, 2007 (Vellore District) and consequential order bearing No. NK A3/2310/2002 dated March 16, 2007 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the property situate at Plot No. 97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, SIPCOT, Ranipet and to direct the first respondent to stop further proceedings for recovery of any arrears of sales tax payable by Tajura Leathers-second respondent from out of the sale proceeds which have been appropriated by the petitioner-bank.2. Facts in a nutshell are as follows:(i) Second respondent, a partnership concern, has availed various credit facilities from the petitioner-bank. As a security for the due repayment of the loan, the second respondent offered its immovable properties- [1] (i) Plot No. 97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, (ii) Muku-ntharayapuram-2548 sq. ft. S. No. 476/5B and [2] S. Nos. 114/4 and 114/...

Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)21VST158(Mad)

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai dated May 20, 2002 in T. A. No. 688 of 2000.2. The petitioner-Tamil Nadu Sugar Corporation Ltd. is a public sector undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu. They are the registered dealers on the files of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nandanam Assessment Circle, Chennai. For the assessment year 1991-92, the assessee filed appeal against the original assessment order contending that there was no transfer of any new commercial commodity in respect of the job-work undertaken by them on behalf of various co-operative sugar mills. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the assessing officer to reconsider the issue.3. The work undertaken by the petitioner are repair work of the machinery parts and accessories thereof relating to various co-operative sugar mills. While carrying out the repairing work, they used to replace the worn out parts ...

The Manager Uti Mutual Fund at Uti House, Chennai and Another Vs. Lt. ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondents are the complainants. 2. The complaint is filed under the following circumstances: The complainants have purchased shares from UTI for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- on the Master Growth 1993 Scheme. As per the scheme, they are entitled to get dividend and bonus on completion of 10 years. The opposite parties have repurchased the shares on 5.5.2003 from the complainants. The cheques were signed on 19.5.2003, for a sum of Rs.2,94,635/-, but the cheques were received by the complainants only on 16.6.2003. It is their further case that the opposite parties have made false claim to the effect that the investment would earn more money. More particularly, an offer of 15% as dividend on completion of 6 years period, which is nothing, but to lure the investors. There was also delay on the part of opposite parties. There is no reply on the part of the opposite parties to the correspondences, as well as the le...

Ammaiappan Vs. General Manager, Canara Bank and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (2009)ILLJ847Mad

ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This writ petition is filed challenging the charge memo issued against the petitioner dated April 9, 2007 by the respondent Bank. The crux of the charge in the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner is that the petitioner, in collusion with some middlemen, opened a Savings Bank Account of prospective borrowers without actually knowing them and without ensuring their presence. In view of the same, the allegations: and the charge framed against the petitioner are to the following effect:.You recommended Candget loans to them to the extent of Rs. 89.56 lakhs during the period from January 2006 to March 2006 violating the laid down norms for identification of the borrowers, execution of documents, disbursement of the loans and follow-up of the loans. All the accounts have become sticky and the whereabouts of the borrowers/company were ...

S.C. Dhatchayani Vs. A. Sathar Essa

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2008(4)CTC759; (2008)7MLJ845

ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions, is the owner of a property bearing Door No. 110, South Masi Street, Madurai Town. The ground floor of the said property comprises of two portions, one measuring 390 sq.ft., and another measuring 48 sq.ft. The portion measuring 390 sq.ft., is in the occupation of the respondents, in CRP (NPD)(MD) No. 736 of 2005. The portion measuring 48 sq.ft., is in the occupation of the respondent, in CRP (NPD)(MD) No. 124 of 2004.2. The petitioner filed RCOP No. 463 of 1992 against the tenant of the portion measuring 48 sq.ft., for eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Similarly, the petitioner filed RCOP No. 471 of 1992 against the tenant in occupation of the other portion, for eviction under Sections 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Act.3. The Rent Controller, Madurai (Additional District Munsif, Madurai) allowed RCOP No. 463 of 1992, ordering the eviction of t...

State Bank India Vs. Gopal Alias Gopalan and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2009Mad50

ORDERS. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Civil revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 19-12-2007 made In LA. No. 1004 of 2007 in O.S. No. 56 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.2. The revision petitioner herein is the first defendant in the suit. The first respondent being the plaintiff in the suit has alleged that the revision petitioner is trying to evict him forcibly from the suit property. The first respondent herein as per the plaint is the tenant under the second respondent paying rent regularly. However, based on as mortgage obtained by the revision petitioner herein, the revision petitioner is trying to evict the first respondent from the suit property. He has also alleged that the cause of action arose on 1-1-2001 when the plaintiff took the suit property on a lease agreement o and continued his possession and on 4-9-2007, when the first defendant was trying to dispossess the first respondent/plaintiff.3. Mr. M. Devaraj, learned ...

C.V.V. Rathnam “ganesh Vihar” Coimbatore Vs. the Manager (Cu ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The appellant is the complainant; the opposite parties are the respondents herein. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 2. The appeal is filed as against the order of dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum in OP.No.181/2003 dt.3.1.2006. The nature of the complaint proceeds in the following manner: The complainant was holding a SBI credit card with the credit limit of Rs.20000/- including cash limit of Rs.8000/-. The complainant has never used the said card to withdraw the money, but however card was used only to purchase materials from merchandise. The complainant had never parted with the card to anybody, including his family member and the pin number was not disclosed. While so, he has received a monthly statement dt.11.1.02 for the period from December 2001 onwards. He was surprised to see that somebody has withdrawn money of Rs.8000/- through ATM card on 20.12.01 and a sum of Rs.100/- on 25.12.01. According to the com...