Chennai Court March 2009 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.
The Management of Senthil Motor Service Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)IIILLJ707Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the Management of a Transport Undertaking against the order passed by the first respondent(Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act) in M.W. Application No. 61/1998. By the said order, the first respondent directed payment of difference in wages to the second respondent for the period from 1993 to 1997. For the earlier period, it gave liberty to the second respondent to file appropriate application with supporting documents. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 29.10.1999. This Court also granted an interim order with a condition that the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 23,250/- with the first respondent. Subsequently, by an order dated 12.6.2000, the second respondent was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited with the first respondent. Once again, when the matter came up on 17.1.2001, this Court modified the earlier order and permitted the balance amount lying with the Commissioner to be withdrawn, since only 50% o...
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Commerci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST632(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Challenging the validity of the clarification dated March 29, 2007, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai 5, first respondent, holding that branded chips are taxable at 12.5 per cent under Part C of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the TNVAT Act') the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Consequently, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the first respondent to classify 'potato chips' sold under a brand name as taxable under entry 107 of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNVAT Act, 2006 and for further orders.2. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:The first petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of, inter alia, chips under the branded name of 'Lays' and 'Uncle Chips' (potato chips). They are also a manufacturer and vendor of other products such as 'Kurkure' and 'Cheetos'. The Assistant Commissioner (Fast Track Assessment Circle I)...
Karuppa Gounder Vs. Kuppusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad122
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Inveighing the order dated 24.10.2008, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani in I.A. No. 293 of 2008 in O.S. No. 66 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:The respondent filed the suit O.S. No. 66 of 2007 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 06.10.2006. The defendant also entered appearance and filed written statement. During the pendency of the trial it appears I.A. No. 293 of 2008 was filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 10(a) of CPC seeking the following relief:To appoint a handwriting and finger print expert, whose address is mentioned hereunder as Commissioner to compare the petitioner's signature found in the Registered sale deed, date4d 19.03.1984 Doc. No. 484/1984 with his signature found in the suit agreement of sale marked as Ex.A1 to file a report to pass other...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Meenakshi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ2218; (2009)2MLJ293
Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. The deceased was a passenger in the insured vehicle and on account of the negligence of the driver who was also the owner of the vehicle, an accident occurred on 30.7.2004. The accident resulted in the deaths of the driver and the three passengers. The driver and two persons died at the hospital, while one passenger died on the spot. The claimants are the legal heirs of the passenger who died on the spot.2. The legal question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the death of the passengers who travelled in the car and whether the insurance policy covers the liability to a gratuitous passenger. We also have to decide what is a just and reasonable compensation for the claimants. According to the claimants they are liable to be compensated in a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The insurer has taken the specific point that on payment of additional premium, the insurance policy in this case has been ext...
S.V. Parthasarathy Battachariar and S.P. Jayamani Vs. S. Rajeswari,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Mad120
ORDERG. Rajasuria, J.1. Inveighing the order dated 26.08.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Chengalpattu, in I.A. No. 65 of 2008 in O.S. No. 364 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Pithily and precisely, tersely and briefly, by way of avoiding discursive discussion, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition could be portrayed thus:The respondents/plaintiffs herein filed the suit O.S. No. 364 of 2005 seeking the following reliefs: a) usual preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties into 5 equal shares and for allotment of one such share to plaintiffs by metes and bounds b) for costs of this suit; and c) for such other relief.Written statement was filed in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, I.A. No. 65 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking interim maintenance from D1 and D2 who are none, but the father-in-law and mother-in-law of first plaintiff a...
The Special Tahsildar, Neighbourhood Scheme Vs. Jaganathan Gounder and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ2
K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. These Land Acquisition appeals involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. These appeals relate to the Land Acquisition Proceedings that commenced as per Section 4(1) notification dated 17.1.1997 and 19.2.1997 and published in the Gazette on 12.2.1997 and 19.3.1997 respectively.3. The extent of property acquired as per the relevant notifications are as follows:Notification dt.17.1.1997 -- 55.89 Acresb) Notification dt.19.2.1997 -- 51.75 Acres4. The details of the land acquisition Original Petitions and the related appeals and Cross Objections and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as by the Reference Court and the findings recorded after remand are detailed in the tabular columns below.NOTIFICATION DATED 17.01.1997-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ERODE HOUSING BOARD BATCH (LAOP)----...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›