Chennai Court August 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.
K. Veeramani and K. Selvamani Vs. Rani and G. Kapali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ1150
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The application in A. No. 532 of 2004 seeks to revoke the Letters of Administration granted in O.P. No. 159 of 2000, dated 2.7.2001.2. O.P. No. 159 of 2000 was filed by the respondent, seeking for grant of Letters of Administration in the matter of last Will executed by Smt.Andal Ammal. The respondent claimed that she is the beneficiary of the said Will. The said Andal Ammal died on 10.8.1995 leaving behind the respondent, who is her daughter born through the first husband Late Natesa Naicker. In that OP, she had made the present applicants as respondents. Notice was ordered to the first applicant, which came back with and endorsement refused. Therefore, it was affixed. With reference to the second applicant, notice came back with an endorsement that he had gone out. Thereafter, on 11.3.2001, paper publication was ordered on two newspapers, i.e. News Today and Malai Murasu. A proof was filed on 2.4.2001. Thereafter, on 11.4.2001,the matter was directed to be poste...
R. Rajasekar Vs. the Secretary to Government, School Education Departm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ882
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. By consent of the learned Counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in Letter No. 22261/V.E./07-4 dated 28.12.2007 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore his pay scale to Rs. 8550/- from 01.01.1996 on the scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500/- and to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 21,978/- within such time with interest from the date of remittance till refund with all consequential monetary benefits.3. The brief facts leading to this case are set out as under:(i) The petitioner was initially selected for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant and he joined service on 21.08.1981 and his service was regularized with effect from 28.12.1982. He was drawing basic pay of Rs. 2,600/- (2575+25 pp) in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 as on 01.01.1996. Based on the 6th pay commission recom...
E.M.E. Edwards St. George School Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)IVLLJ786Mad
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Steno-typist in the Commercial Department of the 2nd respondent in its Bombay Office on 18.05.1970 and her service was confirmed with effect from 01.12.1970. She was transferred to Chennai on 22.03.1977. According to her, after she joined duty at Chennai, the Officials at Chennai have started giving troubles to her in her work. Since she was not paid earned wages, she had to file a case under the Payment of Wages Act against the 2nd respondent. Again, she had to file another case before the City Civil Court, Chennai in respect of her seniority. Because of these cases, the situation was further aggregated, it is stated.2. The petitioner further claims that because of the unbearable work conditions at Chennai, her health got spoiled and therefore, she was forced to go on leave including medical leave for various problems. Each and every time, whenever she went on leave, it was sanctioned as her request was supported by medical certi...
Nazeema Parveen, Vs. A. Zubeidha Bee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ1221
ORDERK.K. Sasidharan, J.1. Challenge in this civil revision petition is to the order dated 16.4.2009 in I.A. No. 1115 of 2003 in O.S. No. 95 of 2002 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.THE FACTS:2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of one P. Mohamed Ismail, defendant in O.S. No. 95 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The suit in O.S. No. 95 of 2002 was preferred by the respondent against P. Mohamed Ismail praying for a money decree for a sum of Rs. 1,04,038/- on the basis of a promissory note stated to have been executed by him. The respondent also filed an application for attachment before judgment and the said application was registered as I.A. No. 8 of 2001. In the said application, the respondent/Mohamed Ismail had filed counter wherein besides denying the allegations made in the application, an undertaking was given that he has no intention to alienate the property and as such there would no alienation till the disposal of t...
The Commissioner of Income Tax I Vs. Tvs Motor Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-2009
Reported in: [2009]319ITR192(Mad)
B. Rajendran, J.1. The assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 1999-2000 and the Department has also completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Later on, the Department found that there was some reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and initiated the proceedings for re-assessment, after issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act.2. The main reason put forth by the Department was that the assessee has claimed deduction of excise duty on stock in bonded warehouse under Section 43B of the Act from the excise duty on closing stock. Later on, the Department found that the said excise duty was not actually paid during the relevant year as the goods had not been cleared before the close of the previous year and therefore, the contention of the Department is that such a deduction could not be claimed for that assessment year and therefore the Assessing Officer d...
Food Corporation of India Rep. by Its Regional Manager Vs. Food Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ632
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The petitioner/Food Corporation of India is a statutory body. The members of the first respondent trade union are its employees. The petitioner introduced two schemes granting special increments which are known as 'Small Family Norms and Acquiring Additional Professional Qualification'. The said increments were paid in the form of personal pay. From the time of introduction of the schemes, the above special increments granted under the schemes were added to the basic pay of an individual employee for the purpose of calculating quantum of House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance (HRA & CCA). Subsequently, the Government of India issued a clarification to the effect that the said increments should not be added to the basic pay for the purposes of calculating HRA & CCA. Based on the said clarification, the petitioner Corporation issued Circular No. 37/92 dated 21.12.1992, thereby withdrawing the proportionate HRA & CCA paid to the employees on the speci...
P. Sundaramurthy Vs. the District Collector,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ638
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner had been initially appointed, as a Nominal Muster Roll employee, to supervise the works executed under the J.V.V.T. Schemes, by the third respondent, by the proceedings, dated 15.7.1982. The petitioner had been working, continuously, from 15.7.1982 to 31.3.1999, without any blemish. While so, he was appointed as a Night Watchman, with effect from 1.4.1999, pursuant to a resolution passed by the Panchayat Union Council, vide Resolution No. 324, dated 5.5.1999. The Commissioner, Panchayat Union, Vanur, the third respondent herein, had also issued the proceedings, dated 6.5.1999, appointing the petitioner as a Night Watchman, with effect from 1.4.1999, on daily wage basis, at Rs. 47/- per day.3. On 12.1.2000, the petitioner was served with an order, dated 2.11.1999, issued by the Bloc...
The Management of Bharathan Publication (P) Limited rep. by Its Managi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ625
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. Heard Mr. Karthik, learned Counsel in support of this appeal. Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appears for the first respondent and Mr. S. Vaidyanathan, learned Counsel appears for the second respondent.2. The appellant is a Printer and Publisher of books. The second respondent is a Union of Employees and the dispute in the present matter is concerning one Mr. G. Karunakaran, who was suspended on 09th September 2006. The second respondent Union raised a demand on 14th September 2006. The demand notice had various demands, one of which was to revoke this order of suspension. The Labour Officer/Conciliation Officer, to whom the demand notice was sent, issued a summons to the parties to appear before him on 27th September 2006. Thereafter, it appears that the matter was being attended by him on a number of days. It so transpired that during the pendency of this proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, Mr. Karunakaran was dismissed on 22nd April 2007....
Reena Joy D/O Y. Joy Kutty Represented by Her Mother and Natural Guard ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-2009
Reported in: (2009)8MLJ206
H.L. Gokhale, C.J.1. Heard Mr. S. Silambanan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the petitions, Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. AL. Gandhimathi, learned Counsel, for Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R Medical University and Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Global Nursing College.2. The petitioners, who are the students of Nursing, the State of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R Medical University are the main parties to these writ petitions. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties request that these writ petitions be taken up on the Board of this Bench, and accordingly the writ petitions and the writ appeals are taken up, heard and are being disposed of at the admission stage itself.3. The petitioners are students, who hail from Kerala, and who have taken admission in a Nursing College situate in Kanyakumari. All these stud...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Arokiam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2009
Reported in: [2009]317ITR381(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. These appeals are at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated September 21,2007, passed in I.T.A. Nos.1320 and 1323/Mds/2007 respectively.2. The relevant assessment year is 2004-05. The facts, as culled out from the statement of facts, are as follows:The assessees were employees of the Reserve Bank of India, Chennai, retired voluntarily under the Optional Early Retirement Scheme. They claimed exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act for Rs. 5 lakhs each out of the compensation received under the above scheme. The Assessing Officer found that the Reserve Bank of India has not granted exemption under Section 10(10C) on the compensation received under the above scheme, but has deducted tax duly treating the compensation as fully taxable and remitted to the Government account. The assessees made a claim under Section 10(10C) independently in the computation statement attached ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›