Chennai Court February 2009 Judgments
L. Yuvaraj Vs. Kirubaarani @ Ambiga Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad138
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Inveighing the order 23.10.2008 passed in I.A. No. 163 of 2007 in HMOP No. 89 of 2007 by the Family Court, Salem, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. The gist and kernal, the pith and marrow of the relevant facts, which are germane for the disposal of this revision petition, would run thus:The revision petitioner herein filed the FCOP. No. 89 of 2007 before the Family Court, Salem, seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. The respondent filed the I.A. No. 163 of 2007 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance for herself and in favour of the minor child born to the petitioner and the respondent. During enquiry, the revision petitioner examined one Yuvaraj as R.W.1. Ultimately the Family Court awarded Rs. 5000/- per month payable by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent towards interim maintenance of the respondent and the minor child, in addition to having award...
Tag this Judgment!K.i.M. Sajjdeen Vs. theni Co-operative Sale Society Limited Rep. by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1336
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of arrest made in E.P. No. 231 of 2006 in R.C.O.P. No. 13 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Theni.2. The respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 13 of 2001 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Periyakulam, under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, contending that the petitioner herein committed wilful default in payment of rent to the building viz., two rooms bearing Door No. 641 and 656, for which rent was agreed to be paid at the rate of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 500/- per month respectively, and also on the ground that the petitioner had sub-let a portion of the stalls to some third parties.3. The revision petitioner, though resisted the said eviction petition, the Rent Controller, by order dated 18.9.2003, ordered eviction on the ground of wilf...
Tag this Judgment!The Superintending Engineer-distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: 2009LC(MAD)58
S. Rajeswaran, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the defendants in O.S. No. 950 of 2000 are the appellant before this Court.2. O.S. No. 950 of 2000 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a declaration to declare that the suit impugned notice dated 21-08-2000/4.9.2000 is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and also for a consequential injunction restraining the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from enforcing the suit impugned notice (or) in any manny acting upon it (or) collecting any amount (or) disconnecting the supply of electricity.3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 950 of 2000 is that, he is carrying on Silver Pattarai at Door No. 15, Angaiyarkani 4th Street, Madurai 18. He is doing business in Stainless Steel Vessels manufacturing and polishing work in the suit building which has been provided with a supply of electricity under Service Connection No. B-18 under III-B Tariff. On 20-06-2000, while white washing the building, the Electrical Meter provided by the Electricit...
Tag this Judgment!Karuna Steel Rolling Mills Vs. Designated Authority, Namely, Joint Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-2009
Reported in: (2009)21VST368(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent holding the petitioner ineligible for applying for a one-time settlement under Ordinance of the year 2008.2. Heard Mr. R. Senniappan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R. Mahadevan, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) takes notice for the respondents.3. Since the issue raised in the writ petition lies in a narrow compass and also since it is a legal issue, the writ petition was taken up by consent for final disposal.4. An order of assessment was passed on September 21, 1994 in respect of the petitioner-mill for the assessment year 1992-93 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 forcing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in TNGST AP No. 21 of 1995. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by an order dated March 16, 1995. As against the order of the appellate authority, ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Stephan, Vs. Ponnammal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1217
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Inveighing the order dated 15.06.2006, passed by the Additional District Cum Sessions (FTC II) Court at Coimbatore, in I.A. Nos. 349 and 350 of 2006 respectively in O.S. No. 781 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents. Despite printing the name, there is no representation for the petitioners. 3. An epitome and 'resume' of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revision petitions would run thus:The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S. No. 781 of 2004 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) with interest and cost. The defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement. The trial also commenced. However, the plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 349 of 2006 for reopening the plaintiffs' side and I.A. No. 350 of 2006 for recalling P.W.1, so as to mark one document which was left out to be marked. The lower Court considered both...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tirupattur Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: [2009]310ITR360(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By formulating the following two questions of law, the revenue is on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated 24.03.2003 in ITA. No. 1841/(Mds)/94. The relevant assessment year is 1990-91.1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction Under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding the receipt not attributable to the business of the assessee should be included in the business income for computing the allowance Under Section 32AB of the Income Tax Act?.2. The facts as culled out from the statement of facts in the memorandum of grounds of appeal are as follows:The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of sugar. For the Assessment year 1990-91, the assessee filed its ret...
Tag this Judgment!Nallakumar Sago Factory Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Ct)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST338(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging an order passed by the respondent, by which the respondent informed the petitioner that the issue of refund of excess tax paid by the petitioner will be considered after finalisation of the assessments.2. Heard Mr. R. Senniappan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. C. Mani Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), for the respondent.3. By an order dated September 29, 2003, the Commercial Tax Officer, Annathanapatty Circle, Salem, finalised the assessment for the year 1996-97 and determined a sum of Rs. 64,412 as the excess tax paid by the petitioner. By the said order, the petitioner was also informed that a notice in form 'C' will be issued for such refund. However, the refund did not come, forcing the petitioner to come up with a writ petition in W.P. No. 14690 of 2008 (Nallakumar Sago Factory v. Commercial Tax Officer). In the said writ petition, this Court directed the...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ402
S. Palanivelu, J.1. The allegations contained in the petition under 75 of the E.S.I. Act, 1948 are as follows:1. (i) The petitioner(respondent herein) is a catering establishment. It is under coverage of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (in short ESI Act). The respondent Corporation sent a notice to the petitioner in Form C-18 (No. 19943/INS/C-18/INS.III/1428/C-18/93) dated 25.02.93 requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,74,670.63 as contribution, calculated @ 7% for Rs. 79,26,491.51 for the period from 1985-86 to 1989-90. The petitioner sent a reply denying its liability to pay the amount. It was explained that the amount of contribution has been worked out were paid to certain companies which are separate legal entities, who carried out certain repair work for the petitioner's establishment. Expenditure incurred for hire-charges, water charges, linen, cleaning items etc., were not wages and therefore they had to be excluded and persons who received more than Rs. 1600/- per mensum, ...
Tag this Judgment!Employees State Insurance Corporation Ltd. Vs. N. Marappan and the Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ228Mad
S. Palanivelu, J.1. The following averments are found in the petition filed by the first respondent, filed under Section 75(e) and (g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948: 1.(i) The petitioner was employed as porcelain moulder in the second respondent company as a permanent worker. On 21.12.1991, at about 5.00 p.m., while he was in employment, he met with an accident. While he was working in Hydraulic Press at Procelain Section, he suffered crush injury in his left hand and was immediately removed to Sri Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore. On 25.12.1991, the crushed parts of the left hand were removed and the left hand was amputated below elbow. The permanent disablement is due to the amputation below elbow of the left hand. The petitioner's E.S.I. Number is 51-1402359. He submitted accident report in Form 16 (Regulation 68) on 21.12.1991 itself to the first respondent (ESI Corporation). He approached the E.S.I. Local office, for sanction of permanent disablement benefit. Since t...
Tag this Judgment!Shanita Holdings Sdn and A. Sekararajasekaran Vs. Shanita Hotel Trichy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2009
Reported in: [2009]152CompCas116(Mad); [2009]92SCL133(Mad)
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The Civil Revision petitioners/R2 and R3/D2 and D3 have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 11.06.2008 in I.A.8812/08 in O.S.3737/08 passed by the learned XV Assistant City Civil Judge, in granting ad interim injunction till 17.06.2008, on an application filed by the first respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.8812/08 has inter alia observed that 'the original minutes book was placed before me, It appears that the Company passed a resolution on 13.01.2006 itself not to allot shares. Primafacie case made out. Ad interim injunction is granted till 17.06.2008. Notice to the respondents, etc.,'3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/R2 and R3/D2 and D3 contends that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide on the issue inasmuch as the same issue is pending before the Company Law Board Bench, Southern Region, Chennai in C.P.94/...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »