Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:22. 08.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009 AND W.P(MD)No.5629 of 2010 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2010 & 1 of 2011 AND W.P(MD)No.6730 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos. 1 of 2011, 1 of 2012 & 1 of 2013 W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009 Vellaichamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, represented by The Secretary to Government, Department of Electricity, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9. 2.The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai, represented by its Chairman. 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer, High Tension Line Construction I, Tamilnadu Electricity Board, K.Pudur, Madurai - 7. 4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. ... Respondents (R4 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 07.02.2014 made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2012 in W.P(MD)No.10194 of 2009.) Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1958Mad343; (1958)1MLJ367
P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred to this Court under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act from the order of the Election Tribunal, Nagapattinam, in Election Petition No. 178 of 1957 before it.2. The election in question was to the Mayuram constituency of the Madras State Assembly, and two members--one to the general seat and one reserved for a member of the scheduled caste--had to be elected. The election was held on nth March, 1957. At this election, G. Narayanaswami Naidu and P. Jayaraj who were the respondents in the election petition were respectively elected to the general and reserved seats. The question at issue in the petition related to the propriety of the rejection of the nomination of C. Krishnamurthi, the election petitioner. First February, 1957, was the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nominations. On that date one of the candidates K. Krishnamurthi--not a party to these proceedings--objected to the nomination ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2006)3MLJ1146
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The question posed before this Court in the above batch of writ appeals and writ petitions is as to whether Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003, namely, Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003 is valid or not?2. When the batch of writ petitions by the consumers, either individually or by Association or by Corporate Sectors have been filed before the learned single Judge, questioning the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003, the learned single Judge by the order dated 21.10.2003 dismissed those writ petitions holding that the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 is valid.3. The above batch of writ appeals have been filed before this Division Bench challenging the said common order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing those writ petitions in W.P. No. 17223 etc. of 2003. Apart from these writ appeals, a number of writ petitions questioning the validity of the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 have also been listed before this Division Bench for disposal.4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)1MLJ662
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The validity of The Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, is the subject matter of challenge in these batch of writ petitions by the consumers, either individually or by association or by corporate sectors, as the case may be.2. At the outset it has to be pointed out that no one has challenged the constitutional vires of the Act, but the challenges are on the periphery. Innumerable contentions were advanced by various learned senior counsel and they will all be considered one by one.3. The Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as The Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 2003 is an Act of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The preamble to the Act reads thus :-'An Act to consolidate and rationalise laws relating to the levy of taxes on consumption or sale of electricity in the State of Tamil Nadu.'4. The Act received the assent of the Governor on 17.5.03 and was published on 19.5.03 in the Gazette. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
O R D E R1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the fourth respondent labour Court, dated 30.12.2005, made in C.C.P.No.18 of 2002, and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to compute and pay the money value of the performance award to the petitioner, along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum.2. The petitioner had stated that he had joined in service, as a Grade D employee, under the respondents 1 to 3, on 14.5.1975. At the time of the filing of the claim petition on the file of the fourth respondent labour Court, he was holding the post of Assistant Officer (MTCE) (NE-9). His wife, D.Kamalavathi, was also employed in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, which was originally a Government of India undertaking. In the year 2000, due to the disinvestment, the Tata Company had taken control of the said Company. While so, there was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and his wife, d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2002)257ITR38(Chennai)
1. There are three appeals for two assessment years, namely, 1995-96 and 1996-97, by the assessee, Sirius Shipping Company Limited, Chennai, against the respective appellate orders. I. T. A. No. 1043 (Mds) of 1999 relates to the assessment year 1995-96 and is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the rectification petition filed by the assessee under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and this appeal was filed in time. I. T. A. No. 1044 (Mds) of 1999, is the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96 against the appellate order dated December 31, 1998, of the Commissioner (Appeals)-IV, Chennai, dealing with the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. This appeal is barred by time by 113 days and the assessee had filed the necessary affidavit and petition for the condonation of delay in filing this appeal, which are dealt with elsewhere in our order. I. T. A. No. 1773 (Mds) of 1999 is for the assessment year 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC334
ORDER1. Defendants 14 to 16 in O.S. No, 710 of 1996, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Erode, are the revision petitioners.2. First respondent herein filed the suit for partition claiming 8/5.6 shares and also for putting her in exclusive possession of the same, she also prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 14 to 16, their men and agents from demolishing the suit property, and for directing the defendants to pay costs of the suit.3. In the body of plaint, it is alleged that plaintiff and first defendant are daughters of one Gurunatha Mudaliar, who died 35 years ago. Apart from plaintiff and first defendant, defendant 8 to 10. One Mariappan and one Duraisami are also the children of Gurunatha Mudaliar. Mariappan died and his widow is 2nd defendant, and defendants 3 to 7 are their children. The legal heirs of Duraisami are defendants 11 and 12. It is alleged that the property is the self-acquisition of plaintiff's father. On the date of death of Guru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1998)2MLJ370
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 100 of 1997, on the file of Sub Court, Palani. Two plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, filed the said suit, to direct the first defendant to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiffs, and directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 being the value of firewood and seized timber to the plaintiffs, with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till payment, and also to direct an enquiry into the past and future mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12, C.P.C, and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his man from putting up any further construction in the suit property, and also award costs of the suit, and grant such further reliefs.2. Facts narrated in the plaint may briefly be stated thus : First plaintiff is the son of late N.R.S. Ramasamy Chettiar. Between himself and his father, there was a partition on 22.5.1964...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC375
ORDER1. This Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.100 of 1997, on the file of Sub Court, Palni. Two plaintiffs, who are respondents herein, filed the said suit, to direct the first defendant to surrender possession of the property to the plaintiff's and directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 being the value of firewood and sized timber to the plaintiffs, with interest at 18% per annum from date of suit till payment, and also to direct an enquiry into the past and future mesne profits under Or.20, Rule 12, C.P.C., and to grant permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from putting up any further construction in the suit property, and also award costs of the suit, and grant such further reliefs.2. Facts narrated in the plaint may briefly be stated thus:-First plaintiff is the son of late N.R.S. Ramasamy Chettiar. Between himself and his father, there was a partition on 22.5.1964. Plaint schedule propert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999]96CompCas81(Mad); 1997(3)CTC119
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 152 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-Court, Periyakulam, is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff/first respondent-bank filed the said suit for recovery of certain amount against the petitioner herein as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 24 herein. Originally, in paragraph 7 of the plaint it, has been stated that the partners of the ninth defendant-firm had deposited the title deeds in respect of items Nos. 1 to 4, 11 and 12 of 'A' schedule with the plaintiff-bank as security for all the amounts due from the first defendant under various accounts. It is further stated that those properties are belonging to defendants Nos. 2, 3 and one late Pandian and late V. N. Surilimani, whose legal representatives had been added as defendants Nos. 16, 17, 20 and 8, 15, 21 to 23. The title deeds have been deposited with an intention to create security. It is further stated that the first defendant-firm, through all its partners, has deposited the title de...
Tag this Judgment!