Chennai Court July 2009 Judgments
B. Manivannan Vs. the Senior Administrative Officer Sugarcane Breeding ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ864
ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. The above Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the 3rd Respondent Tribunal dated 9.4.2002 in O.A. No. 879 of 2002.2. The Petitioner herein is the Applicant before the Tribunal. The original application was filed to set aside the order passed by the 1st Respondent herein dated 31.07/2.08.2002 denying promotion/advance increment to the Applicant for the period from 1.1.1987 to 31.12.2001 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent herein to treat the applicant having been promoted to various higher grades namely grade T5 w.e.f. 1.1.1991, grade T6 w.e.f. 1.1.2001 and grant all consequential monetary and other attendant benefits including arrears of salary and other service benefits.3. In the original application the Applicant stated that he is working as Documentation Assistant in the 1st Respondent Institute which is a constituent of Indian Council for Agricultural Research. The Applicant was served with a Memorandum dated 27.11.1986 about c...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Tirun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2009
Reported in: (2009)25VST205(Mad)
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. A vexed question as to whether a particular transaction is an inter-state sale or a works contract, is the issue raised by the Revenue in the present appeals.2. We have heard Mr. D. Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant/State and Mr. P. Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.3. The first respondent was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, for the year 1997-1998. Their accounts were later called for and checked. The first respondent claimed exemption in respect of (i) inter-state cooly printing works and (ii) printing works executed for a single user.4. The Commercial Tax Officer passed an assessment order dated 31.8.1999 allowing exemption on inter-state printing cooly receipts. But the claim for exemption in respect of printing works for a single user, was disallowed and the claim for concessional rate of tax in respect of inter-state sales against 'C' Forms was also rejected.5. The appeal filed by t...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.T. Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. M. Palanisami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-2009
Reported in: [2009]151CompCas233(Mad); (2009)6MLJ821; [2009]95SCL112(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order of the Additional Principal Bench of the Company Law Board made in C.A. No. 161 of 2006 in C.P. No. 37 of 2006 dated 30.01.2009.2. The respondents in this appeal have filed the company petition against the appellants for oppression and mismanagement under Sections 397 and 398 read with 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was, in that company petition, the appellants have filed Application No. 161 of 2006 before the Company Law Board for dismissal of the said company petition on the ground of maintainability. That application came to be dismissed by the Company Law Board on the basis that the issue raised by the appellants require consideration in detail, which can be done only in the main company petition.3. The grounds on which the appeal is filed are that, the Company Law Board cannot decide about the title in respect of shares stated to have been transferred while exercisi...
Tag this Judgment!Reserve Bank of India Represented by Its Manager and the Assistant Gen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ664
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present appeal is filed by the Reserve Bank of India against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5957 of 2001, wherein the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition filed by the present Respondent, had issued a direction to the present appellants to provide compassionate appointment to the son of the present Respondent as Class-IV employee.2. The facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:The husband of the writ petitioner, who was employed under the Reserve Bank of India, died in harness on 20.6.1991 leaving behind the widow - writ petitioner, one minor son and two minor daughters. The writ petitioner filed an application on 4.9.1991 requesting for appointment of her son in the Bank on compassionate ground. The Bank by its letter dated 7.9.1991, advised the writ petitioner to file appropriate application after the son becomes major. Subsequently, on 15.4.1994, after the son of the writ petitioner had attained majority, she made a...
Tag this Judgment!M. Somasundaram and S. Selvakumar and ors. Vs. Mr. V. Srinivasan S/O V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ2114; (2009)8MLJ1284
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present appellants have filed C.S. No. 420 of 2007 in the Original Side of the Madras High Court claiming the following reliefs:(a) For a declaration declaring that the three Sale Deeds dated 10.03.1996 registered as Document No. 2001/96, 2009/96 & 2007/96 at the office of The Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam, Chennai, executed in favour of the 3rd Defendant by Defendants 4 to 14 are sham, nominal and therefore null and void and not binding on the 2nd Plaintiff.(b) For a consequential Declaration declaring that the three Sale Deeds dated 30.10.2000 registered as Document Nos. 3661 of 2000, 3665 of 2000 and 3667 of 2000 at the office of The Sub Registrar, Purasawalkam, Chennai, executed in favour of the 2nd Defendant is sham, nominal and therefore null and void and not binding on the 2nd Plaintiff.(c) For a Declaration declaring that the 2nd Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit 'A' Schedule property by virtue of Will dated 01-07-1978 executed by Daisy Devasagayam....
Tag this Judgment!Madras Gymkhana Club Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-2009
Reported in: (2009)226CTR(Mad)176; [2009]183TAXMAN333(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. These appeals arise out of orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in various Income Tax appeals preferred by M/s. Madras Gymkhana Club, M/s. Madras Club and M/s. The Coonoor Club.2. The common question of law involved in these appeals are as to 'whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest income of the assessee clubs received from its corporate members, on the investment of surplus funds as Fixed Deposits with them, is not exempted from tax on the concept of Mutuality'. In some appeals, a further question of law as to 'whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act was valid in respect of the assessee clubs'.3. As far as the first question is concerned, the activities of the clubs viz., Madras Gymkhana Club, Madras Club and The Coonoor Club is for the benefit of its members, in as much as, the club members are provided with various facilities such as...
Tag this Judgment!K. Raamaselvam and Others Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by Its Chief ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)CTC385; 2009(5)LW127; 2010(1)MLJ313; AIR2010Mad93
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the relief stated therein.)P.K. Misra, J.Respondents have entered appearance and filed their counter. The matter is taken up for disposal with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed praying for declaration, declaring the action of the first respondent in proceeding under the Sarfaesi Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and confirming the sale in respect of the properties of the petitioners comprised at new door No.61, old door No.7, Part, Gajapathy Street, Aminjikarai, Chennai- 600 030 and Door No.8, Kanniammal Koil Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai-600 030 in favour of the second respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Sarfaesi Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.2. Bereft of all details, the basic facts are as follows:-The present writ petitioners are the borrowers. In ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rajamanickam Vs. the Management of State Farm and the Presiding Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ54Mad
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. As all these appeals arise out of a common order, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.2. It appears that the appellants were working on daily wage basis in the State Farm Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') asagricultural Mates or Pump Operators or Helpers. The Management of the Corporation were dealing with agriculture. All the workers numbering more than 800 resorted to strike on 22.1.1981 raising various demands like wage increase, holidays, festival advance, filling up of vacant post, provident fund, etc. While they were on strike, a Settlement was reached between the Management and the Union of 27.4.1981 under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the said Settlement, provisions were made for provident fund, wages for weekly holiday, festival advance, re-employment of workers etc. It was agreed upon that the Mates, Pump Operators and Helpers are not be to continued further, a...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its Chairman, Railway Board and Vs. V. Gu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ546
ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. Surprisingly the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Railway Administration, when in our opinion, the applicant/first respondent ought to have approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we propose to deal with the matter in its entirety so as to give a quietus to the entire controversy. The first respondent herein, as applicant, filed O.A. No. 366 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking to set aside the order dated 15.4.2004 r/w orders dated 23.4.2005, cancelling the applicant's promotion to Senior Scale in Group B and reverting him to Group B while denying him promotion to Group A and for a further direction to continue the applicant in Senior Scale in Group B with further promotion to group A with retrospective effect, when his juniors were given the same.2. The facts leading to the filing of the Original Application:(i) The applicant was selected by the Railway Service ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Sterling Spinners Limited Vs. the Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: (2010)ILLJ393Mad
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (for short, 'the Act') was amended and Clause (d) of Section 16(1) was omitted with effect from 22.9.1997. In view of such omission of Clause(d) of Section 16(1), the second respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai Region, Madurai, by intimation/letter dated 12.2.1998, informed the appellant-Management of Sterling Spinners Limited, that the benefit of infancy protection, which was given to it, cannot be given in view of the aforesaid omission made by the amendment.2. The appellant-Company (Writ Petitioner) having unsuccessfully challenged the said order/intimation, dated 12.2.1998, has preferred this Writ Appeal against the order dated 18.8.2000 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3304 of 1998.3. The appellant-Company was incorporated as a Public Limited Company on 20.9.1994 and it was established in an industrially most backward area for manu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »