Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 2003 Page 2 of about 26 results (0.025 seconds)

Mar 05 2003 (HC)

Madras Steel Re-rollers Association, Rep. by Its President Sri Umesh M ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-05-2003

Reported in : 2003(88)ECC563; 2003(159)ELT75(Mad)

..... basis of production capacity. section 3a(4) of the act provides for reduction of duty in case of actual production being lower than the capacity under section 3a(1). the rationale behind these sections has been gone into and approved by the supreme court in the case of venus castings where it has been held as follows: 'what can be seen .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2003 (HC)

Land Acquisition Officer-cum-deputy Collector (Rev) Vs. Angeline Devad ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-28-2003

Reported in : (2003)2MLJ7

..... to be adjusted towards the interest due etc. in meka venkatadri appa rao bahadur zamindar garu & ors. v. raja parthasarathy appa rao bahadur zamindar garu air 1922 pc 233 the rationale was explained thus:- ' there are moneys that are received without a definite appropriation on the one side or on the other, and the rule which is well-established in ordinary .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2003 (HC)

Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. Kamaraj National Labour Organisation Rep. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-10-2003

Reported in : I(2004)BC138; (2004)IILLJ25Mad; (2004)1MLJ316; [2004]51SCL149(Mad)

..... first respondent union and in our opinion rightly so. once that position is clear, the very basis of the writ petition is knocked out and the very basis of the rationale used by the learned single judge is also knocked out because if the writ petition itself was based on the incorrect factual basis then, it could not be allowed to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 2003 (HC)

J.K. Pharmachem Limited, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Rep. by Its Sr. G. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-21-2003

Reported in : (2004)1MLJ662

..... be specific, clear and unambiguous allegations in that behalf and it must be established that the impugned statute is based on discrimination as not referable to any classification, which is rationale and which has nexus with the object intended to be achieved by the said statute. in this respect, it is useful to refer to the pronouncement of the supreme court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2003 (HC)

The Madras Medical Mission, represented by Its Hon. Secretary, K.V. Ge ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-06-2003

Reported in : (2003)3MLJ839

r. jayasimha babu, j. 1. the madras medical mission (appellant) established in 1982 at chennai by the members of orthodax syrian church, is a society registered under the tamil nadu societies registration act, 1975. it has established an institute for cardio vascular diseases, an institute for reproductive medicines for women's health and a transplant center for organ transplantation. it has recently set up a 300 bed hospital and has established facilities for commencing a new medical college at ganapathichettykulam, kalapet, pondicherry under the name and style of 'pondicherry institute of medical sciences' (pims). the estimated project cost is rs.80.00 crores of which rs.46.00 crores which includes borrowed funds of rs.34.00 crores is said to have been already invested. 2. it applied to the central government in the year 2001 for permission to establish the new medical college commencing from the academic year 2002-03, such permission having been sought in terms of section 10a read with section 33 of the indian medical council act, 1956, (act no. 102 of 1956) and the admission to medical college regulations, 1999 framed by the medical council of india under section 33 of the said act. the government of pondicherry had, on 07.12.2000 granted essentiality certificate for establishing this medical college with 100 seats. in that certificate it was noted that the doctor population ratio in pondicherry is 1:950 while the doctor population ratio in india is 1:2083. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2003 (HC)

Coimbatore Stock Exchange Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Stock Exchange B ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-30-2003

Reported in : 2003(4)CTC385; (2003)3MLJ672

p. shanmugam, j.1. all the above appeals are filed under section 27 of the electricity regulatory commissions act, 1998 (act 14 of 1998).2. the appellants, as consumers of electricity, have preferred the appeals aggrieved by the tariff order of the tamil nadu electricity regulatory commission dated 15.3.2003, fixing fresh tariff in respect of commercial and high tension consumers of electricity. 3. the electricity regulatory commissions act 1998 (act 14 of 1998), hereinafter referred to as the 'act', has been enacted by the parliament providing for the establishment of state electricity regulatory commissions to rationalize electricity tariff, framing of transparent policies regarding subsidies, promotion of efficient and environmentally benign policies and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. the government of tamil nadu constituted the tamil nadu electricity regulatory commission (hereinafter referred to as 'tnerc') in g.o. ms. no. 58, energy (a.1) department dated 17.3.1999. the tamil nadu electricity board (hereinafter referred to as 'tneb') submitted a tariff petition before tnerc on 25.9.2002 for revision of tariff with effect from 1.12.2002, which was registered as t.p. no. 1 of 2002. after issuing a public notice, tnerc invited response from all the stake holders. some of the appellants herein have submitted their representations/objections during the public hearing. after considering their response as well as the written submissions made on behalf .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 2003 (HC)

M. Veerateswaran Vs. the Deputy Collector Cum Sub-divisional Executive ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-18-2003

Reported in : 2003(2)CTC449; (2003)2MLJ578

orderk. sampath, j.1. the prayer is for a mandamus to forbear respondents 1 to 3 from giving permission to the fifth respondent for the purpose of playing microphone in a private temple within the premises bearing door no. 64 nehru street, karaikal, union territory of pondicherry, on the following allegations:the fifth respondent, a resident of karaikal, had purchased the property at door no. 64, nehru street, and illegally put up a construction and using it as kalyana mandapam. he had not obtained a sanctioned plan. the plan originally sanctioned has no connection whatsoever with the construction put up by him. the petitioner has complained to the authorities and they have also initiated legal action to prosecute the fifth respondent. the said construction adjoins the petitioner's compound wall. the fifth respondent has installed an amman statue. during december and january, he secured permission from respondents 1 to 3 and played music through microphone at odd hours causing immense nuisance to neighbours. the petitioner's family was directly affected on account of the noise emanating from that place. the distance between the temple and the petitioner's house is hardly one foot. the fourth respondent has also given electricity supply to the temple. the third respondent permitted the fifth respondent to play music at odd hours. the fifth respondent did not adhere to the timings. there is unabated nuisance caused. during the previous year, the petitioner had given objection, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2003 (HC)

Oriental Insurance Company Vs. M. Usharani and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-16-2003

Reported in : (2003)3MLJ530

1. cma. no: 1151 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th december, 2000 made in mcop. no. 3939 of 1997 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, (iv court of small causes) madras, while the claimant has lodged cross objection no. 8 of 2002 for enhanced of compensation.2. cma.no:1152 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th december, 2000 made in mcop. no. 3940 of 1997 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, (iv court of small causes) madras, while the claimant has lodged cross objection no. 9 of 2002 for enhanced of compensation.3. cma.no:1153 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th december, 2000 made in mcop. no. 3941 of 1997 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, (iv court of small causes) madras, while the claimant has lodged cross objection no. 10 of 2002 for enhanced compensation.4. cma.no:1154 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th december, 2000 made in mcop. no. 4031 of 1997 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, (iv court of small causes) madras, while the claimant has lodged cross objection no. 11 of 2002 for enhanced compensation.5. cma.no: 1155 of 2001 has been preferred by the insurer as against the award and decree dated 19th december, 2000 made in mcop. no. 4049 of 1997 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal, (iv court of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 2003 (HC)

industrial Catering Services (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Office ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-27-2003

Reported in : [2003]132STC35(Mad)

orderr. jayasimha babu, j.1. the assessment years with which we are concerned are 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. the question raised before us by the petitioner, who during these assessment years functioned as independent contractor to factories or other establishments and ran a canteen in those establishments, is as to whether its turnover in relation to the sales effected in those canteens is exempt from sales tax by reason of a notification dated 1st september 1964 or by another notification dated 25th march 1989. 2. the notification dated 1st september 1964 issued under section 17 of the madras general sales tax act 1959 exempted, with effect on and from 1st september 1964, the tax payable under the said act, on the sales by a canteen run by an employer, or by the employees on co-operative basis on behalf of the employer under a statutory obligation without profit motive, provided that the employer subsideses atleast twenty five per cent of the total expenses incurred in running the canteen. 3. the notification of 25th march 1989 granted exemption 'in respect of the tax payable on the sale of food and drinks other than falling under the first schedule to the said act at any hotels, restaurants, sweat stalls or any eating houses whose total turnover does not exceed rs. 10 lakhs per annum.' it may be noticed here that this notification of 25.03.1989 was amended on 30.05.1990 enhancing the limit to rs. 15 lakhs and by a subsequent notification dated 5.9.1990 those two .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 2003 (HC)

V. Maria Pushpa Janet Rajam, Mentally Unsound, Represented by Her Fath ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-14-2003

Reported in : 2003(3)CTC577; (2003)3MLJ305

orderp. sathasivam, j.1. the appeal is directed against the common order passed by the additional district judge, kanyakumari at nagercoil dated 30.8.2001, made in o.p.nos. 21/2001 and 32/2001 in and by which the district judge dismissed o.p.no. 21/2001 filed for judicial separation under section 22 of the indian marriage act and allowed o.p.no. 32/2001 granting custody of the minor children in favour of the applicant, namely g. anantha jeyakumar, respondent in this appeal. since the present appeal is directed only against the order granting custody of the minor children made in o.p.no. 32/2001, it is unnecessary for us to narrate the facts relating to o.p.no.21/2001.2. the case of the petitioner-husband is briefly stated hereunder:for convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the district court. according to the petitioner, the marriage between him and the respondent-wife was performed on 3.9.87 at saint antony's r.c. church, anthoniar vattom, thiruvithamcode as per christian roman catholic rites. the respondent begot two children. the petitioner is practising as homeopathy doctor. he constructed a house for the benefit of their family and children. it was he, who incurred all the expenses for the birth of two children. the respondent-wife was forcibly taken from the matrimonial home on the ground that specialised treatment has to be given for her mental illness. the children are with the mother and grand-parents. in order to educate them in good school .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //