Chennai Court July 2009 Judgments
The Headmistress and Correspondent, Jayarani High School Vs. the Union ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ535
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Petitioner has filed this petition, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to forbear the respondents 1 to 3 from permitting the fourth respondent to utilize the premises at Door No. 219, Lal Bahadur Sastry Street, Puducherry, for vending of liquor under F.L.1 Licence or F.L.2 Licence, as the case may be, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to shift the liquor shop, if licence stands already granted, to any other place outside the limit of 300 metres of the petitioner school.2. According to the petitioner, it is a school, run exclusively for girls and more than 300 students are being educated therein; the school has its repute of 100% pass of 10th students and won shield of honour from the Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry and is 70 year old; there were rumours that the respondents were considering a request of one of the manufacturers of liquor for the grant of licence to sell liquor in the premises situated right opposite to the school p...
Tag this Judgment!A. Philoman Raj Vs. S. Kunna Gounder,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ267
A. Selvam, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No. 49 of 2000 by the Subordinate Court, Kulithalai.2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 461 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai, for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction and alternatively for recovery of possession, wherein the present appellant and the respondents 2 & 3 have been shown as defendants.3. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is originally belonged to the first defendant and the same has been assigned in his name. From the date of assignment, the first defendant has enjoyed the suit property. On 20.08.1973 the defendants and their minor children have executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and put him in possession of the suit property. Due to recent misunderstanding, the defendants have interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Sudarshan Kumar Rungta, Prop., Raun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-2009
Reported in: [2009]185TAXMAN98(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The revenue has come forward with this appeal raising the following substantial question of law:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 was not valid on the ground that the Assessing Officer had taken only one of the possible views regarding the assessability of credits appearing in the books of the assessee, when the Assessing Officer has failed to make necessary enquiries regarding the assessability of the said amount in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act?2. The brief facts are that the assessee herein is a proprietory concern. The assessment relates to the assessment year 2003-2004. The assessment order came to be made on 28.3.2006. At the time when the assessment order came to be passed, the assessing authority himself has noted that the assessee's proprietory concern was conver...
Tag this Judgment!P. Pugalenthi Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Secretary, Home D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: 2010CriLJ135
ORDERElipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a practising Advocate in this Court and he has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition praying to produce the body and person of Mrs. Saradha, aged 55, R.P. No. 7340, now confined in Special Women Prison, Vellore, to provide her proper medical treatment for the injuries suffered by her at the prison; to take disciplinary action against all those responsible for the ill-treatment meted out to the said Ms.Saradha at the said prison and further directing the respondents to pay appropriate compensation to the said Ms. Saradha.2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner has submitted that besides being a practising Advocate, he is also the Director of Prisoners Rights Forum, established to create law awareness among the prisoners to help them enforce their human rights, constitutional rights and legal rights and is also the Joint Secretary of Thamizhaga Makkal Urimai Kazhagam (Tamil Nadu Peoples' Rights Forum), a human rights...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman Bar Council of Tamil Nadu High Court and the Chairman Tru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ107
P. Jyothimani, J.1. These appeals are filed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Tamil Nadu against the common order of the learned Judge dated 9.3.2007 made in W.P.Nos.1991 of 1996, 11133 of 1998, 1932 of 2003 and 4533 of 2004, by which the learned Judge has struck down a proviso to Explanation II(5) to Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Welfare Fund Act').2. The first respondent in W.A. No. 823/2007, respondents 1 to 6 in W.A. No. 824/2007, respondents 1 to 5 in W.A. No. 826/2007, respondent in W.A. No. 829/2007, respondents 1 to 5 in W.A. No. 830/2007, first respondent in W.A. No. 831/2007 and respondents 1 to 6 in W.A. No. 832/2007 (for brevity, 'the contesting respondents'), who are the advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu after having retired from Government and other services, have challenged the above said proviso by which the benefit of payment of Rs. 2 Lakhs to a member of the Advocates Welfare ...
Tag this Judgment!The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer) and Vs. N. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ209
V. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The land of the extent of 0.48.0 hectares in Survey No. 357/3A1, Parapatti Village, Hamlet of Viswanatham Village, Sathur Taluk, Sivakasi District, belonging to the respondent herein, was acquired by the Government for the purpose of upgrading the existing Electricity Sub Station. An award was passed in Award No. 3 of 1990 dated 26.2.1990, granting a total compensation of Rs. 51,100/-, comprising of Rs. 17,784/- towards value of land, Rs. 17,957.50 towards value of trees and the balance towards solatium etc.2. On a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in L.A.O.P. No. 127 of 1992, the Tribunal, viz., Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 24,26,000/- together with solatium and interest, by a judgment dated 28-4-1993. Aggrieved by such enhancement, the Referring Officer as well as the beneficiary viz., the Tamilnadu Electricity Board filed an appeal in A.S. No. 282 of 1994, on the file of this Court. Finding that the ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jayaraman Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ629
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.06.2007, passed in W.P.No. 5472 of 2005.2. The petitioner joined the services of the second respondent Board as an Assistant Engineer on 10.11.1980. By an order dated 10.05.1999, he was deputed to the Rural Development Department in the very same post of Assistant Engineer for a period of two years. Though the period of deputation as per the said order dated 10.05.1999, was for a period of two years, he was allowed to work in the Rural Development Department even after expiry of the initial period of two years.3. Be that as it may, the appellant along with 126 Assistant Engineers were promoted temporarily as Assistant Executive Engineers by an order dated 21.05.2004, of the second respondent. The petitioner's name was found in Serial No. 90 of the said proceedings. That apart, in the column 'Present Station' it was specifically mentioned that he was working in RWS Division, Madu...
Tag this Judgment!The Management, Rural Unit for Health and Social Affairs (Ruhsa) and t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ459
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The second respondent herein was selected for training as Livestock Supervisor in the Programme conducted by the Rural Unit for Health and Social Affairs (RUHSA) with effect from 1.6.1983. The RUHSA had rules providing for benefits to the employees under the said Programme. In the year 1985, RUHSA was re-integrated with the Chritian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore. The second respondent was asked to give his option and willingness to come under the discipline of CMCH. He gave an undertaking to abide by the CMCH Staff Service Rules, Leave Rules, etc. 2. By order dated 16.10.1987, the CMCH, the second appellant herein, informed the second respondent that his term of appointment was extended and he was posted as Livestock Assistant in the RUHSA Department at the institution for a period of three years from 1.7.1985. This appointment letter had the usual clauses, viz. the appointment being temporary and terminable at any time without notice. By order dated 27.6....
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the Executive Engin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ615
D. Murugesan, J.1. The Writ appeal in W.A.No. 796 of 2008 is at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The Writ appeal in W.A.No. 378 of 2009 is at the instance of State. Both the writ appeals question the common order dated 28.4.2008 made in the writ petition in W.P.No. 5316 of 2006. By that order the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned orders therein and the Government was directed to exclude the lands in survey numbers in question from the acquisition proceedings and reconvey the same in favour of the petitioners.2. The controversy in the writ appeals arises under the following circumstances:An extent of 43.19 acres of land in S. No. 46/2 etc., in Sowripalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District was notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for housing scheme. After considering the objection raised in 5A enquiry, a declaration was made and ultimately the acquisition proceedings culminated into one of an award and possession of land was tak...
Tag this Judgment!Vasanthi and ors. Vs. Silambana Gounder (Died) S/O Appichi Gounder and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ841
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. The respondents in I.A. No. 50/2008 in O.S. No. 28/2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-IV) Bhavani are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition.2. The suit in O.S.No.28/2004 was filed by the deceased Silambana Gounder and the respondent against the revision petitioners praying for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners and their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent.3. The suit was contested by the revision petitioners by filing written statement.4. Subsequently, the trial commenced and P.W.1 was examined and the plaintiff's side was closed. Immediately, the respondent filed an application in I.A. No. 50/2008 to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking a document which is stated to be the deposition of the first petitioner in a criminal proceeding wherein she admitted the factum of execution of a will. T...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »