Chennai Court January 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
D.S.M. Polymers (P) Limited Vs. the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Spe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2005
Reported in: [2006]144STC375(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal made in O.P.No. 300 of 2003, dated 25.3.2003. The Special Tribunal by its order has held that against the order, which had been challenged before the Special Tribunal, which was passed by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai (North) Division, dated 05.3.2003, a revision would lie before the Joint Commissioner (CT) (RP), Chennai-5 under Section 35 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. The Special Tribunal, therefore, has held that since an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, it was appropriate for the petitioner to approach the said authority and challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner by way of filing a revision. It is that order of the Special Tribunal which is being challenged in this writ petition. 2. We heard Mr.K. Venkatasubramaniam, learn...
Manoranjitham Manamyil Mandram Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-2005
Reported in: AIR2005Mad261
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P. No. 3466 of 2004 preferred for issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from preventing the functioning of the society in the premises at No.5, Dindigul Road, Near St. John Church Junction, Trichy and also from preventing the members of the petitioner society from playing games of Rummy, Table Tennis, Chess, Carrom Board.2. The grievance of the petitioner /appellant is that the respondents are arbitrarily interfering with the affairs of their club infringing their rights conferred under Article 19(1)(b)(c)(g) of the Constitution of India and the appearance of the respondents to the petitioner /appellant's club would tarnish the image of the club.3. The learned single Judge, by order dated 16-11-2004, holding that the apprehension of the petitioner /appellant is uncalled for and unwarranted, held that the respondents are only discharging their statutory function and that has to be taken in its...
Asianet Communications (P.) Ltd. Vs. Dy Cit, Media Circle-i
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2006)7SOT496(Chennai)
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals)-VI, Chennai, dated 27-1-2004. It relates to the assessment year 2000-01.The assessee-company claimed Rs. 10,50,00,000 as deduction towards payment of non-compete compensation, The assessee-company has made two agreements on the same day. The details are as under: Both the authorities rejected the claims of the assessee under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Aggrieved on this the assessee is in appeal and this issue is the first issue agitated before us.We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax - departmental Representative Mr. J. Vinay Kumar for the department. We have carefully perused the materials and the precedents relied on. There is no disputes about facts.37. The expenditure incurred for the purpose of business which is neither capital nor personal are allowable. Now, we have to consider whether this payment made by the ass...
Shanthal Vs. L. Ganesan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ433
Markendey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 22.11.2004. The appellant was elected as a Chairman of the Devakottai Municipality in Sivagangai District. A notice under Section 40-B of the Tamilnadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 was given signed by 15 members of the Municipal Council.2. Under Section 40-B of the Act one third of the sanctioned strength has to give a notice and admittedly, the sanctioned strength of the Municipal Council in the present case is 27. Hence, a minimum of 9 members had to sign the notice, and in this case 15 members had signed it, which is much more than the minimum required by Section 40-B of the Act.3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the copy of the notice was not given to the appellant and hence there was violation of Section 40B of the Act. This fact has been disputed by the writ petitioner who has filed the writ petition praying for a direction to convene a meetin...
Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram Division Ii) Ltd., R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-2005
Reported in: (2005)1MLJ435
Markendey Katju, C.J.1. This writ appeal is filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 12.10.2004.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition was filed against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 01.09.2003 issuing a permit in favour of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division II, to ply on the route Tiruvannamalai to Melpacher. In our opinion, the writ petition should not have been entertained at all, in view of the fact that an alternative remedy of either filing an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or a revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act is available.3. Although it is true that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, yet in our opinion, the ordinary rule should ordinarily be followed that when there is an alternative remedy, a writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained.4. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›