Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-11-2002
Reported in : [2003(96)FLR459]; (2003)ILLJ729Mad
D. Murugesan, J. 1. The petitioners were appointed in the second respondent- management as Chemistry Lab Assistant, carpenter and pump operator on February 26, 1986, October 18, 1984, March 18, 1985, respectively. On March 31, 1988, the services of first and fourth petitioners were terminated. On March 17, 1988, the services of second and third petitioners were terminated. Hence, the petitioners filed claim statement before the Labour Court, Coimbatore questioning the non-employment along with 16 other employees on the ground that the same is illegal and unjustified and for an award, directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioners with full back-wages and continuity of services and other benefits along with compensation, interest and back- wages. The said dispute was adjudicated in I.D.No. 346 of 1989. By an award, dated February 16, 1995, the Labour Court, Salem, directed the second respondent herein to pay only compensation to the petitioners while declining reinstatemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-10-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Mad33
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.5078 of 1985 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,100/- alleging that when he was working as a Watchman in the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Madras, he sent 16 hundred rupee notes valuing Rs.1,600/- and 15 hundred rupee notes valuing Rs.1,500/- in two registered insured covers, to his wife Smt. Tikimaya Devi Thapa, who is living at West Nepal, from the G.P.O., Madras, and when the said covers were opened, only newspapers cuttings were found, but not currency notes. 3. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants contending that even though two insured letters were alleged to have been sent by the appellant/plaintiff were received in good condition with 'Lahaseal' intact and forwarded to the addressee - the wife of the appellant/plaintiff, who received the covers without any tampering, she found o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-2002
Reported in : (2002)1MLJ728
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. This petition coming on for orders as to hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition, and upon hearing the arguments of Miss. Lathamaheshwari, counsel for the Petitioner, and of Mr. N. Thiagarajan, counsel for the Respondents, the Court made the following Order:-The 2nd defendant in O.S. No.820 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Salem is the petitioner herein. The above Revision has been filed against the Order dismissing I.A. No.709 of 2000 filed under Section 151 C.P.C to try issue No.4 ie., ' Whether the plaintiff has valued suit properly and paid correct court fees as a preliminary issue '. 2.The first respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.828 of 1995 against the 2nd respondent/first defendant and the petitioner herein, praying the court to grant a decree setting aside the sale deed dated 18.3.1993 executed by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant as vitiated by fraud, cheating and fraudulent misrepresentation and not valid in law ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-31-2002
Reported in : [2002]255ITR194(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This revision is filed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. A very novel question is involved in this revision.2. The assessee is a company. It was liable to pay the agricultural income-tax and was regularly paying the tax for the relevant assessment years. For the purposes of the assessment, the assessee-company had chosen its assessment year to be from July to June, that is for the year 1990-91, its assessment year was from July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. So also, for the year 1991-92, the assessment year was from July 1, 1990 to June 30,1991, and for the year 1992-93, it was from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. However, it seems that the Agricultural Income-tax Act was extensively amended with effect from April 1, 1992, and the definition of 'previous year' as it appeared earlier vide section 2(t) underwent a change. The term 'previous year' is now defined as :' 'previous year' means twelve months ending ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-05-2002
Reported in : AIR2002Mad257; (2002)1MLJ580
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. 1. At issue is the constitutionality of the Governmental action in providing rural reservation for admission to professional courses conducted by the Government and self-financing colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu.2. Excepting W.P. No.16595 of 2001 and W.A. No.2624 of 2001 arising therefrom, which relate to admission to law course, all other writ petitions relate to medical admission. The genesis for this litigation is G.O.No.603 (Education), dated 30.8.1996, by which a high level committee was appointed to review the standard of education, basic facilities etc. The high level committee had recommended to the Government to reserve 15% of the seats for the students studying in panchayat schools in rural areas. The premise on which such recommendation was made is said to be the disparity in opportunity in securing admissions to professional courses between the students studying in the schools located in rural areas as compared to that of urban areas. Accor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-19-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ2342
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Nithyanandam, the appellant herein, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentence to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, has filed this appeal. 2. The short facts leading tot he conviction are as follows:'(a) P.W.3 Kalidhasan, the Sub Inspector of Police, NIB CID received the information Ex.P4 on 22.9.1993 at about 11.15 P.M. regarding the offenders involving in the possession of heroin at Periyamedu. He recorded the same in Ex.P5 and sent it to P.W.5,the Inspector of Police, NIB CID. Then, he proceeded to the spot for surveillance at the junction of Naval Hospital Road and E.V.R. Periyar Road at Periyamedu. He secured the help of one Jayakumar P.W.4 to be as a witness for search. (b) P.W.3 and Head Constable P.W.1 along with P.W.4 were watching the movements of the offenders. At that time, i.e. on 23.9.1993 early morning, they found two persons including the appellant wal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-18-2002
Reported in : 2003(27)PTC343(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The applicants in O.A. No. 337 to 339 of 2001 are the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 265 of 2001. The applicants in Application No. 4803 of 2001 is defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, who have moved the application to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 11.4.2001 in O.A. No. 339 of 2001. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents or anyone claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered patent bearing No. 01301264 by using the offending patents either using the trade mark 'LOVATO' and 'LOVATO AUTOGAS' or the trade mark RAAJAN AUTO GAS or any other mark or marks which are in any way identical with or colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered patent, bearing the trade mark 'LOVATO' AND 'LOVATO AUTOGAS', either by manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or in any man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-03-2002
Reported in : (2002)2MLJ167
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The dispute is between two churches for a piece of property. 2. The history of the case starts in the 19th century when Christian Missionaries from England set up missions all over the world to spread the message of Christianity. One such society was the London Mission Society whose object was to enlighten the ignorant regarding the greatness of the Lord. So they left their country and went to the four corners of the world to spread their message. They purchased several properties in India for building churches and prayer halls. In 1804 Rev. Ringeltaube set foot in India and set up several churches in the south. Later, Col. Monroe and Rev. Charles Mead spread the message of Christianity. Mead was appointed as the Judge of Nagercoil Court and he built a huge church in Nagercoil with stones and it was called the Kal kovil. Ex.B5 which is a publication called the 'Nagercoil Home Church properties and gift lands, etc.' gives the history of the properties belonging to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-26-2002
Reported in : (2002)2MLJ597
P.K. Misra, J.1. The present writ petition has originally been filed by G. Krishnamoorthy @ G.K. Moorthy for quashing the order passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the original petitioner for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension. Original Petitioner having expired during pendency of the petitioner, his widow has been substituted. However, in the judgment, the original petitioner shall be referred as petitioner for convenience.2. A Scheme for grant of pension to the Freedom Fighters was introduced by the respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.2064, Public (General) Department, dated 28.9.66 dated 28.9.1966 with effect from 1.10.1966. As per the aforesaid Scheme, the freedom fighters who were sentenced to imprisonment for not less than three months or who were killed in action or were awarded capital punishment or died due to firing or lathi charge, on account of participation in the National Movement are eligible (In the case of a deceased freedom fighter, who was otherwise el...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-24-2002
Reported in : (2002)176CTR(Mad)496; [2002]257ITR305(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall govern two tax cases, they being T. C. Nos. 587 and 588 of 1984.2. In T. C. No. 587 of 1984, the questions referred are at the instance of the Revenue. They are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding the sum of Rs. 97,94,949 being the amount received under the arbitration award for the work done in connection with the feeder canals for the Farakka Barrage Project during the period from January 1, 1967 to September 30, 1969, was not a revenue receipt but only a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, Shri J. H. Tarapore, and, therefore, exempt from tax ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the source being the work executed by the firm, the income accrued to the firm and that as it passed on to the asses-see Shri J. H. Tarapore, in terms of settlement deed it can be only in application of income ?'...
Tag this Judgment!