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 : 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 : 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 : 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!