Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ235
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner, who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the District Board Higher Secondary School from 1952 to 1964, filed O.A. No. 7426 of 1997 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking for a direction to the respondents to sanction pension with effect from 5.1.1981 and to continue to pay the same.2. At the time of filing of the O.A., the petitioner was 65 years old. The only ground on which the petitioner placed reliance for the grant of pension was the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of one K. Ammaiyappan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu made in O.A. No. 2600 of 1990, dated 24.04.1996.3. According to the petitioner, after the direction issued by the Tribunal, the Government has implemented the order in G.O.Ms. No. 827, Education, dated 25.11.1996. In that order, the case of the individual was considered on the basis of the voluntary retirement in terms of FR 56 and he was given the benefit of pension after holding that he had serve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ275
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The respondents in the writ petition have filed the present writ appeal against the order of the learned Judge dated 9.4.2007, by which the learned Judge has directed the appellants to confer the benefits given to the parties before the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. P.Krishnamurthy and Ors. : AIR2006SC1622 to the respondent, by granting him lease.2. It is the admitted case of the parties that in respect of the lands measuring an extent of 11.36.5 Hectares comprised in S.F.Nos.26, 32 and 33 situated in Ottampatti Village, and 5.50.0 Hectares and 6.85.5 Hectares comprised in Survey Nos. 134/Part-1 and 134/Part-2 respectively, situated in Tiruvanapatti Village, in Uthangiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District, the respondent was granted lease and the lease came to be terminated due to the advent of G.O.Ms. No. 95, Industries Department, dated 1.10.2003, by which the leasing operations in the Government lands have been taken over by the Government.3. When the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2009]317ITR422(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These appeals are at the instance of the revenue filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, dated 13.02.2004 made in M.P. No. 156(Mds)/2003 in ITAs Nos. 369 & 370/Mds/2000 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. The facts of this case are as follows : The assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96 admitting a total loss of Rs. 44,650/- and Rs. 84,531/-. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued and after hearing the assessee, the assessing officer arrived at the tax due at Rs. 960/- and Rs. 300/- respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Aggrieved against the order, the revenue carried the matter on appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2009]313ITR167(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The revenue is on appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 07.11.2003 made in ITA No. 2176/Mds/1996 for the assessment year 1992-93.2. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 on 30.12.1992 declaring taxable income of Rs. 35,62,410/-. The assessing officer, while completing the assessment found that the assessee had paid contribution to gratuity fund amounting to Rs. 7,83,495/- beyond the accounting period. The assessing officer held that the extended due date as per the proviso to Section 43B of the Act was not applicable to gratuity and superannuation fund. He, therefore disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 43B of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the claim and directed the assessing officer to allow the deduction. The revenue on its turn filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the assessee has pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2010CriLJ248
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. The legality and correctness of the successive orders issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the core question to be decided in this Writ Petition.Factual Matrix:Petitioner's Version:2. The petitioner is a member of Kallar community residing in Therkutheru Village in Melur Taluk of Madurai District. There is a well known temple in the said village known as 'Arulmigu Manthai Veeranasamy Temple' and the said temple is managed by the members of the five families belonging to the Kallar community. They have been managing the administration of the temple from time immemorial and the temple was treated as a private temple for all these years. There was a proceeding in O.A.No.89 of 1978 before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. In the said original application preferred by the members of Kallar community (Ambalak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ1187
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This Revision has been directed against the judgment in RCA.No.864 of 2000 on the file of the Court of VIIth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which had arisen out of the order passed in RCOP. No. 869 of 1998 on the file of the Court of XVth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The landlord/respondent herein had filed the said RCOP under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief averments in the petition are that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner/landlord in the premises bearing Door No. 58, Perumal Mudali Street, Chennai, for a monthly rent of Rs. 655/-. The tenancy is for non-residential purpose. The tenant had committed default in payment of rent from 01.02.1997. The petitioner requires the petition scheduled building for his son who has no other place for conducting or starting new business of fancy items. Hence, the land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ283
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition for a declaration declaring Sections 12, 18, 19 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Central Act 43 of 2005) as unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.3. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition, are set out here under:3.1. The first petitioner is the husband of the sixth respondent. Petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents. Petitioners 4 to 6 are his brother, sister in law and sister respectively. The first petitioner married the sixth respondent on 05.07.2004 at C.S.I. Trinity Church, Avadi. It is an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the sixth respondent demanded the first petitioner an extravagant and ultra modern life style and made all the other family members as servants for her simple needs and started picking up quarrels with everyone in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ987
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7731 & 7732/2003 seek Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of 4th Respondent dated 24.02.2003 reverting the writ petitioner in (W.P. No. 7731/2003) from Assistant Manager to Senior Assistant/Clerk and writ petitioner in (W.P. No. 7732/2003) from Clerk to Office Assistant and directing for payment of subsistence allowances.2.Brief facts which led to filing of writ petition are as follows:(i) Writ petitioners who have been working as Assistant Manager and Clerk respectively. On allegations of irregularities and dereliction of duties and responsibilities the writ petitioners were reverted to lower post - Assistant Manager to Clerk and Clerk to Office Assistant. Special Officer initiated disciplinary action against them and accordingly charge memo dated 30.09.2002 and 29.08.2002 respectively were issued to the Petitioners and explanations were called for from them. But Petitioners failed and neglected to submit explanation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)25VST384(Mad)
ORDERK.N. Basha, J.1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of Declaration declaring that the petitioner above named is not liable to pay additional sales tax in respect of the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 when the petitioner is not liable for payment of additional sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, since their taxable turnover is less than Rs. 25 Crores and further to direct the respondent above named to refund to the petitioner the amount of additional sales tax of Rs. 15,79,415/- paid by the petitioner under protest to get the bank attachment raised.2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Local Act') and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'). The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the respondent. The petitioner filed the monthly returns under the Centr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ850
G. Rajasuria, J.1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 27.10.2006 passed in A.S. No. 37 of 2006 by the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgement and decree dated 12.4.2006 passed by the District Munsif, Nagapattinam, in O.S. No. 12 of 2003, which was filed for mandatory injunction.2. The appellant herein as plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 12 of 2003 seeking mandatory injunction to remove the construction put up by the defendants in the suit pathway and also to restrain the defendants from interfering with the use of the pathway by the plaintiff on the main ground that ever since he acquired the property, to the East of the suit pathway, he has been using it for ingress and egress to his property and that his predecessor in title, namely, his vendor also was using the same.3. Whereas the defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit by filing written statement remonstrating and refuting the allegations in the...
Tag this Judgment!