Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

D. Grusamamy and Another Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Its S ...

Court: Chennai

K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. These two writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 31 March 2011 in W.P.No.11015 of 2009 and W.P.No.6296 of 2011 dismissing the claim for pensionary benefits by taking into account the earlier service rendered in Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "TANSI") and Tamil Nadu Leather Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "TALCO") along with the regular service rendered in Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as "Khadi Board"). The facts: 2. The appellant in W.A.No.1225 of 2011 was initially appointed as Works Manager in TANSI Tannery with effect from 20 October 1982. Subsequently, he was transferred to TALCO on 14 April 1986. While he was working with TALCO, he was given promotion as General Manager. Subsequently, TALCO was amalgamated with Khadi Board pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.54, Small Industries (SID) Department dated 30 October 2000 and he was abs...

G. Damodaran Vs. the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ano ...

Court: Chennai

(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the attachment notice dated 28.3.2005 issued by the respondent under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules 119, and to quash the same as null, void and ultravires the constitution.) The petitioner was a store keeper in the Reserve Bank of India. He also became a member of the impleaded second respondent-The Reserve Bank Employees Cooperative Credit Stores. The petitioner borrowed certain amounts from the second respondent Society. Since he has defaulted in payment, arbitration proceedings were initiated against him in A.R.C.No.12/95-96. 2. The Arbitrator conduced an ex-parte proceedings and by an award dated 7.5.1996, computed a sum of Rs.37,638.95 and deductions were started from the petitioner's salary from the year 1998 till 2002. At that time, the petitioner did not question the arbitration award before the appellate Tribunal constitute...

The Senior Manager (Contracts Cell), Chennai Petroleum Corporation Lim ...

Court: Chennai

(PRAYER: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 27.04.2012 passed in W.P.Nos.12458 and 12462 of 2011.) The Hon’ble Chief Justice These appeals have been preferred against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 27.04.2012 passed in W.P.Nos.12458 and 12462 of 2011. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. Since, in the both the writ petitions, the parties are one and the same, and the issues involved are also one and the same, for the sake of convenience the facts in W.P.No.12458 of 2011 alone are being referred to by us. 3. It is stated that the Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (CPCL), the appellant - Corporation herein, is a Public Limited Company and is a Group Company of Indian Oil Corporation. The Corporation invited tenders for providing transportation services at their Manali Refinery by hiring (i) Ambassador Car (Non A/C and AC) (W.P.No.12458 of 2011) (ii) Seven Tempo Tr...

Mrs. Kamala Dharmalingam Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013AIR(NOC)75

(PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for the relief as stated within.) The Hon’ble the Chief Justice & T.S. Sivagnanam, J. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to quash the notice dated 26.7.2011 issued by respondents 1 to 3 under Section 220 read with 222 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act IV of 1919, by which the petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment made by her in rsepect of the land at No.247, M.T.H. Road, Villivakkam, Chennai-49, failing which action will be taken for removing the same without further notice to her. 2. The petitioner assailed the impugned notice mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not put up the construction on any road margin, as alleged, the land in question being a Government poromboke land and not owned by the Corporation of Chennai and therefore, the Corporation of Chennai has no authority or jurisdiction to ...

Jinsasan Distributors Rep. by Its Proprietrix, Leeladevi Vs. the Comme ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013WLR190

This batch of writ petitions is taken up for disposal by consent of the counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.R.Jaya Prathap, learned Government Advocate (Tax), as all the batch of cases relate to a common issue as to the liability of the petitioners, who are registered dealers, to repay the input tax credit availed by them on lawful purchase of goods from another dealer. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follow: Each one of the petitioners in this case is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (for brevity, "the TNVAT Act, 2006") and they are engaged in purchase and sale of tax paid goods and in some cases they are manufacturers, who use the tax paid goods purchased from other dealers. Each one of the petitioners/dealers in this case have availed input tax credit on the amount of tax paid under the TNVAT Act, 2006 by the registered selling dealer on purchase of taxable goods specified in Schedule-I. This benefit is availed by the petitioners herein under...

The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Stae Transport Corporation (Coimbator ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 20.07.2010 made in W.P.No.47940 of 2006.) R. BANUMATHI, J. Challenge in this appeal is the order made in W.P.No.47940 of 2006 (dated 20.7.2010), whereby the single Judge modified the award of the Labour Court, Salem in so far as ordering continuity of service from the date of dismissal i.e., from 4.7.1996 till the date of the award of the Labour Court dated 31.3.1995. 2. The brief facts are that the 2nd respondent joined in the service of appellant Corporation as Conductor on 27.8.1986. While he was in service, he committed several acts of misconduct, for which he was awarded minor punishments. The appellant Corporation issued a charge memo dated 16.7.1994 for his continued absence from 20.6.1994 onwards without any permission or leave. Enquiry revealed that a murder case was registered against the 2nd respondent in Crime No.136 of 1995 on the file of Kunnathur Police Station. The explanation of 2n...

K.R. Narayanan Vs. M. Siva Prakasam

Court: Chennai

R. BANUMATHI, J. These appeals are preferred against the order in (i) O.A.No.1028 of 2010 granting temporary injunction restraining the Appellant-Landlord from alienating the suit property and (ii) O.A.No.1031 of 2010 restraining the Appellant-Landlord from interfering with the possession of the Respondent-Builder in respect of the suit property. 2. Appellant is the owner of Door No.1, New Door No.49, First Main Road, Siringeri Mutt Road, Ramakrishna Nagar, Chennai-28. Appellant-Landlord and Respondent-Builder have entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 23.12.2003 for joint development of the said house property bearing Door No.41, New Door No.49. As per the Memorandum of Understanding, Respondent-Builder has to put up twelve flats consisting of three flats in each floor i.e. 1 to 4 floors. Out of the constructed flats, fifty percent of the flats i.e. six flats in 3rd and 4th floor to be allotted to the Appellant-Landlord and six flats in the 1st and 2nd floor to be allotted...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd.

Court: Chennai

P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA, J. 1. The above matter is filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A" Bench, in ITA No.1619/Mds/02 dated 12.06.2006 raising the following substantial questions of law. "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the omission of the 2nd proviso to Section 43 B is deemed to have retrospective effect? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, deduction of payments to provident fund, made belatedly, beyond the time and grace period under that statute are to be allowed u/s 43 B? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that interest on delayed payment of income tax need not be added while computing the book profit under section 115JA of the Income Tax Act? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, interest on delayed payment of income tax is to be con...

Subramaniam and Another Vs. R.R. Vasuki and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order of the learned I Additional District Munsif (Rent Controller), Coimbatore dated 08.03.2004 in I.A.No.388 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.142 of 2000.)When the petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that this revision is not at all maintainable as contemplated under Section 23(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 as it says that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the controller may within 15 days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction and not a revision. Keeping in view of this fact, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. There shall be no order as to costs....

Latha and Others Vs. the Mayor and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)CWC202

(Prayer: W.P.Nos.13742 to 13744 of 2012: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writs of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent notice dated 18.05.2012 regarding the Vellore City Corporation Council Proceeding to be held on 22.05.2012 and quash the same. W.P.Nos.14819 to 14821 of 2012: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writs of certiorari calling for the file proceedings relating to the auction of Shop Nos.4, 6 and 5, respectively, conducted by the 2nd respondent on 15.05.2012 confirmed by the 1st respondent in the Council Meeting held on 22.05.2012 from the file of the respondents 1 and 2 and quash the auction as null and void.) Common Order: 1. As the issue involved in all the above Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by a common order. 2. Facts leading to the filing of these Writ Petitions are enumerated thu...