Chennai Court July 2010 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.
Ajeema .. Vs. Debendranath Sarangi Secretary to Government, Transport ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking to punish the respondents for the alleged disobedience of the order of this court in W.P.No.2689 of 1999, dated 1.7.2008. In the Sub Application, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the second respondent Transport Corporation to pay a cheque for Rs.1,06,925/- which amount was computed by the Labour Court and which order was upheld by this court. 2. When the matter came up on 25.11.2008, this court admitted the contempt and ordered notice to respondents. 3. The facts and circumstances of the case are as follows:The petitioner is the wife of late R.M.Anwar, who was a driver appointed by the respondent State owned Transport Corporation. After serving the corporation, he went on voluntary retirement with effect from 30.6.1991. Subsequently, claiming his dues, he filed a claim petition in C.P.No.829 of 1994. The Labour Court computed the amount, by an order, dated 26.12.1996. The said order was challenged by the State of Tami...
Commissioner of Income Tax .. Vs. M/S. Luk India P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. The Revenue has come forward with these appeals raising the following substantial questions of law:"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for warranty was an allowable deduction, even though the provision had not been made on any scientific basis ensuring a fair degree of accuracy, thereby resulting in huge deferment of revenue and tax liability thereon?2. For Assessment Year 2003-04 and 2004-05:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision made by the assessee should be allowed as a deduction for the purpose of 115JB on the I.T. Act, even though such provision has not been made on any scientific basis and huge excess provision had been made resulting in deferment of revenue?2. The question concerns the provision for warranty claims made and it is allowable.3. Mr.K.Subramanian, learned senior standing...
Mrs.Alphonsa theodore ... Vs. Union of India, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. The petitioner was appointed on 31.3.1983 as the Accounts Clerk in Tiruchirappalli Railway Division and thereafter promoted as Junior Accounts Assistant in the year 1986 and as Accounts Assistant in the year 1989. While she was holding the post of Accounts Assistant in Tiruchirappalli Division, she has requested the Administration for inter-divisional transfer to Palghat Division. Accordingly, she was transferred to Palghat Division by order dated 30.11.1998 to the lower post of Accounts Clerk which is two posts below the post she was holding at the time of transfer.2. According to the petitioner, at the time of her transfer to Palghat Division in 1998, she was regularly holding the post of Accounts Assistant for ten years and was drawing basic pay of Rs.5,750/= in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-150-8000. On her transfer to Palghat as Accounts Clerk, her basic pay was fixed at Rs.4,590/= in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-4590. The petitioner would submit that the transfer to Palghat was h...
P.Gopinath, and ors. Vs. the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribuna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. Since both the matters arise from out of the same order of the Tribunal, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.P.No.31089 of 2007.3. To fill up the posts of postman from among Group 'D'/Gramin Dak Sevaks (in short 'GDS'), the Chief Postmaster General, Chennai has sent a letter dated 14.2.2005 to various units to call for applications from the eligible candidates. Pursuant thereto, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vellore Division, by his letter No.B2/1-2/2-5, dated 17.3.2005 has called for applications from the eligible group D/GDS to submit their applications for a departmental examination for promotion to the cadre of postman from among Group D/GDS to be conducted on 12.6.2005. In response to the said notification, the petitioners and the party respondents have applied for and have gone through the entire process of selection. The e...
Mani @ Palanisamy ... Vs. Varadharaja Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 28.08.2009 in I.A.No.117 of 2008 in I.A.No.755 of 2007 in O.S.No.114 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Villupuram, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both sides.3. A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition. Whereupon, the defendants contested the matter and ultimately it ended in passing a preliminary decree. Thereafter final decree application was filed by the respondent/plaintiff and he obtained an exparte final decree, but it was set aside subsequently, at the instance of D5/the revision petitioner herein. In the meanwhile, the fifth defendant presented the appeal as against the preliminary decree with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay condoned in filing the same and it is still pending in I.A.No.432 of 2008 in unnumbered A.S before the learned Pr...
Mahaveer Bhandari. Vs. Chief Post Master, Chennai General Post Office, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. Inveighing the order dated 15.12.2003 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CMP No.249 of 2003 in APSR.No.336 of 2003, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. Heard both.3. Niggard and bereft of details, the relevant facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The revision petitioner herein intended to prefer appeal before the State Consumer Redressal Commission impugning and challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai(South). However, there was a delay in filing such appeal and as such CMP No.249 of 2003 in APSR.No.336 of 2003 was filed to get the delay condoned, but it was dismissed by the the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide its order dated 15.12.2003.4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on the main ground that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the application filed under Section 5 o...
Mrs. K. Baby Prasantha Kumari ... Vs. the Territory Manager (Lpg), Bha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. The petitioner is a LPG Distributor of Indian Oil Corporation in Yanam, Pondicherry State. Bharat Petroleum Corporation awarded LPG Distributorship to Yanam Co-operative Stores Ltd., a Pondicherry Government Undertaking. The petitioner has questioned in this writ petition, the award of LPG distributor ship to Yanam Co-operative Stores at Yanam.2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner could alone be a LPG distributor and no other party could do their business. The writ petition is filed to achieve the said purpose. The claim of the petitioner is impermissible.3. In my considered view, this writ petition is not maintainable and this matter is covered by the Division Bench judgment reported in 2005 (1) CTC 394 (Nataraja Agencies, rep. by its proprietor G. Natarajan, Dealer, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Pondicherry vs The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, New Delhi and others) Para 4 of the judgment reads as follows: "4. In the present case, th...
R. Vasu .... Vs. Union of India, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-2010
1. 33 years, yes, 33 years ago, charges were framed against the appellant, an employer in the Income Tax Department. The proceedings have not progressed beyond the stage of inquiry report. Incredible, but true.2. Two charges were framed against the appellant on 7.9.1987 one that he had produced a bogus caste certificate showing himself as he belongs to "Kattunaicken" community and the second charge is that he suppressed the information that he belonged to "Gavara" community.3. The Enquiry Officer initiated enquiry on these two charges and these charges are still pending because of the various proceedings and interim orders obtained by the appellant.4. The history of the case must be traced from 1987, listing the several proceedings both before the Tribunal and in the civil forum. The appellant filed a suit in O.S. No.197/87 before the Sub Court, Pudukottai for a declaration that he belongs to Kattunaickan community, which is a Scheduled Tribe. Civil Revision Petition Nos.2053, 3234 and...
M. Gaspar .... Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 27.5.2005 passed by the second respondent and the consequential order passed by the third respondent dated 21.10.2005 insofar as it describes the petitioner as Junior Grade P.G.Assistant on consolidated pay, selected for the year 2005-2006 and direct the respondents to declare that the petitioner has been selected as regular P.G.Assistant for the year 2002 and entitled to all consequential benefits from the date on which the persons who have secured lesser marks than the petitioner and selected and appointed as regular P.G.Assistant and confer all consequential benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is that the Teachers Recruitment Board called for applications on 3.7.2002 for filling up 50 posts in the cadre of P.G.Assistants (Commerce). Petitioner applied under the seats reserved for B.C., General as well as Burma repatriates. Petitioner appeared for the written examinations on 18.8.2002. Results were published on 4.10.20...
M/S.Chennai Corporate Club Pvt. Ltd., Vs. the Assistant Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-2010
1. Head both sides.2. On consent, these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing.3. As the petitioner, the controversy issuance and the relief sought for in all the three petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by common order. All the three writ petitions are filed for the issuance of writ of Certiorari to set aside the proceedings dated 5.11.2009 and 24.12.2009 in even Pan No.AACCC3395H relating to the assessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.4. The brief facts, which are relevant for the disposal of the issue in hand are as follows:The petitioner is a club providing services in the form of entertainment and relaxation to its members and for the purpose of getting entry into the club members are bound to pay life membership fee. The members are in addition to life membership fee bound to pay only monthly or annual subscription to the club to enjoy the services rendered. While submitting the returns for every assessment year, the petitioner used to treat t...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »