Chennai Court April 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 Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ465
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. K. Sridhar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.2. Respondent No. 1 was working under the present petitioners as an Industrial Worker in Class III. Admittedly, he had married one Sakuntala and at the time of employment, he had nominated her as wife for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 changed his nomination and nominated Veni @ Krishnaveni and described that she was the wife. He had also nominated the children born through aforesaid Krishnaveni.3. Subsequently, when the Department discovered such anomaly and called upon Respondent No. 1 to explain, Respondent No. 1 wrote a letter to the Department stating that he had divorced his first wife Sakuntala in accordance with village customs and had married Krishnaveni thereafter. It was also pointed out by him in the said letter that a suit for declaration of divorce in respect of the first marr...
E. Murugesan Vs. the Special Tahsildar (A.D.W.) Cum Land Acquisition O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ287
ORDERM. Venugopal, J.1. The revision petitioner/appellant/claimant has filed this revision petition as against the order dated 21.10.2002 in unnumbered C.M.A.(G.L.) No. 5753 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Ambasamudram in rejecting the unnumbered appeal.2. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the order passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Ambasamudram in unnumbered C.M.A.(G.L.) No. 5753 dated 02.11.2001 is not correct in the eye of law since the revision petitioner has applied for the copy of the award on 03.10.2001 and the same has been received on 21.10.2001 and that the C.M.A. has been filed on 07.11.2001 and it is the consistent case of the revision petitioner that the appeal filed by the revision petitioner before the learned Sub-Judge, Ambasamudram is not barred by limitation, in view of the fact that the respondent has not sent the copy of the award to the revision petitioner and this aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the learned Sub-Judge, A...
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Rep. by Its Chief Lpg Manager (Engg.), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1
D. Murugesan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.P. No. 461 of 2005 dated 26.02.2008. The appeal arises under the following circumstances.2. A works contract dated 18.8.2001 was entered into between the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the appellant herein (hereinafter referred as 'the Corporation') and M/s. Devi Constructions, Erode, the first respondent herein, for execution of certain constructions. In view of the questions raised in the appeal, we are not inclined to elaborate the terms and conditions of the contract, except referring to Clause 18 of the contract, which provides for an arbitration in case of a dispute and passing an award within a period of twelve months after entering upon the reference or within such extended time not exceeding further four months.3. A dispute arose and the matter was referred to a Sole Arbitrator. The respondent-Devi Constructions made a claim of Rs. 22,82,600/-. The appellant-Corporation also made a counter-...
S. Murugan Vs. M. Veenainathan and United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ2085; [2009(121)FLR1085]
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. Heard Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. M. Swamikannu, Learned Counsel for the Claimant.2. The above Appeals have been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai in MACTOP No. 4200 of 2002 dated 9.9.2002. CMA. No. 436 of 2006 has been filed by the Claimant not being satisfied with the award, and CMA.No.1094 of 2006 has been filed by the Insurance Company. The facts which are necessary for deciding the above Appeals are as hereunder.3. On 14.07.2005 at about 03.00 hours, the Claimant, S.Murugan was proceeding as a Co-Driver in a Container Lorry from North to South in G.S.T. Road. Due to the negligence of the driver, the Lorry dashed against the left side parapet Wall which resulted in the Claimant sustaining multiple fractures and injuries all over his body. The Claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 23,00,000/- under various heads. The Claimant contended that the Driver of the Lorry was solely ...
P. Padmanabhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Government of Pondiche ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: [2009(121)FLR1165]
ORDERD. Hariparanthaman, J.1. The issue that has to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service as Assistant Director in the 3rd respondent Department with effect from 14.08.1992. His claim was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the 4th respondent herein, by an order dated 01.04.2004 in O.A. No. 1023 of 2003.2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:i) The petitioner, joined in the 3rd respondent Department as Sub-Editor on 19.10.1983. He possesses M.A. (Tamil), M.A. (Journalism), M.O.L., B. Ed., and Ph.D.ii) The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director on 14.08.1992 against the regular vacancy and after selection process. However, his promotion was on adhoc basis.iii) The 3rd respondent Department issued an order dated 09.01.2003, regularizing the service of the writ petitioner as Assistant Director prospectively. Hence, he filed an application in O.A. No. 142 of 2003 befo...
Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Ayyakannu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ707
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The claimants P. Murugan, V. Subramani and P. Ayyakannu were travelling in a goods vehicle bearing registration No. TN-55/K-4584 which capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. According to the claimants, all the three were travelling in the vehicle along with the goods, to ensure the safe transportation. The vehicle was insured with the appellant and therefore, according to the claimants, the appellant is bound to pay the compensation. The individual facts are as follows:2. Murugan is a seasonal agricultural worker and also seasonal construction worker. According to him, his monthly income range from 7000 to 10,000/-. His left shoulder was dislocated. He had suffered injury on the left upper arm and internal injuries on skull and chest and multiple injuries all over the body. He was an inpatient for one day at Annal Gandhi Memorial General Hospital, Trichy - 620 017 and an out-patient thereafter. He claimed Rs. 3,00,000/-.3. Subramani was also...
Ellon Curative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST402(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The correctness of the order of the Tribunal dated July 10, 2001 made in T. A. No. 473 of 2000 is canvassed in this appeal by formulating question of law as under:Whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the assessing officer, which failed to appreciate the tax recoupment of controlled commodity under the provisions of Section 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ?2. The assessee is a registered dealer on the file of the Velacherry assessment circle. They are dealers in pharmaceutical business. For the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee reported total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,92,488 and Rs. 4,29,072, respectively. The assessing officer, on verification of the books of accounts, determined the total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,92,488 and Rs. 4,29,072, respectively and levied penalty in a sum of Rs. 7,321 under Section 22(1) of the TNGST Act. The petit...
Madras Traders Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-2009
Reported in: (2009)26VST381(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The revision is filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai 104, dated March 28, 2002 made in S.T.A. No. 277 of 2001.2. The assessee, a dealer in pulses and grams, was finally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,52,71,011 and Rs. 1,48,76,056, respectively for the assessment year 1993-94. During this period, the assessee showed the sales through the agents to other States and claimed exemption of Rs. 33,95,980 as consignment sales. The Enforcement Wing Officials inspected the place of business of the dealers on March 18, 1994 and subsequently they have also verified the documents, with the transport company on August 17, 1994 so as to find out the genuineness of the transport of the goods alleged to have been made by transfer to other States through lorry. The inspection of the Enforcement Wing Officials revealed that there was no movement of the goods from...
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST613(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This is the revision filed at the instance of the revenue against a common order of the Tribunal in as many as 27 appeals dated 25.02.2002, wherein and whereby the revisional order passed by the Assessing Authority by bringing a huge turnover to tax and the consequential levy of penalty which has been confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has been set aside. The correctness of the same is canvassed in this revision by formulating the following questions of law:1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in having set aside the order of the Assessing Authority as affirmed by the First Appellate Authority only on the ground that the department is in possession of extract sent by the Enforcement Wing Officers and nothing more?2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the view that the burden of proving the purchases of groundnut from Karnataka Dealers would still lie upon the department and no...
M. StalIn Arockiaraj, Correspondent, Sahayamatha and St. Michael Teach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1504
D. Murugesan, J.1. An extent of 0.92.0 hectares of punja land in village Survey No. 46/4C in Somanathamangalam village, Sivagangai Taluk was notified under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') in Form-II read with Rule 3(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Rules, 1979 by the District Collector, Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar District in the District Gazette dated 17.9.96. In the notification one Tmt. Janaki Ammal, W/o Velayutham was shown as the land owner. An award dated 10.1.97 was passed quantifying the amount of compensation for the land to be paid to the said Janaki Ammal. The acquisition proceedings were questioned by one Er. V. Michael, Correspondent, Sahayamatha & St. Michael Teacher Training Institute, Sivagangai on the ground that the land in question was purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 28.4.84 from one Savarimuthu and h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »