Chennai Court November 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.
Dr. Mrs. Suchitraraj Vedamuthu and Sudhir Andrew Vedamuthu Rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)1MLJ46
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J.1. This writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing counsel for the respondent.2. The prayer in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to consider and pass orders on the application filed by the petitioners dated 03-06-2004 for construction of second and third floors in the property situated at Old Door No. 51 and New Door No. 42, Thirumalai Pillai Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.3. Mr. Doraisami, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have originally constructed a building consisting of ground and first floor after obtaining planning permission from the Corporation of Madras under the residential category on 04-05-1994; that the building comprising of ground and first floor was built strictly in accordance with the Rules; that the petitioner herein again applied to the Corporation of Madras ...
Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works Vs. the Registrar, Customs Excise and Ser ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2005
Reported in: 2006(194)ELT151(Mad); (2006)1MLJ222
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the order No. E/ROA/52/03-MAS dated 27.12.2004 in E/Appeal No. 1426/96-MAS of the first respondent.2. The appellant is engaged in the work of processing cotton fabrics. The Central Excise Officers attached to the Preventive Group of Erode Division searched the appellant company on 07.06.1995 and found that some process of mercerising was going on manufacturing excisable goods. The enquiry revealed that there was neither a Central Excise Registration Certificate nor any records maintained for the fabrics which were mercerised and cleared.3. A show cause notice was issued on 18.10.1995 to the appellant company calling upon the appellant to explain as to why payment of duty on the clearances made should not be demanded and as to why the goods seized should not be confiscated and penalty imposed under Rules 9(2), 52A, 173Q and 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant company submitted its explanation indicating that the proc...
Smt. Jayapradha Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Mad)300; [2006]284ITR385(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge dt. 24th Aug., 2000 made in WP No. 14234 of 2000 in and by which, the learned Judge declined to interfere with the order of the second respondent herein dt. 23rd Feb., 1999.The sum and substance of the grievance of the appellant was that she was entitled to the benefits of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (in short 'the Scheme') and that her application to derive the benefits under the said Scheme was rejected by the second respondent by the order dt. 23rd Feb., 1999.2. Paragraph 95(i)(a) of the said Scheme reads as under :95. Scheme not to apply in certain cases.-The provisions of this Scheme shall not apply-(a) in a case where prosecution for concealment has been instituted on or before the date of filing of the declaration under Section 88 under any direct-tax enactment in respect of any assessment year, to any tax arrear in respect of such assessment year under such direct tax enact...
Palaniappan R.M. Vs. Transport Commissioner and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2005
Reported in: (2006)IILLJ401Mad
ORDERS.K. Krishnan, J.1. Aggrieved by the orders of the Transport Commissioner in R. No. 29298/V4/91 (E.O. No. 294 of 2000) dated June 6, 2000 and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, passed in O.A. No. 4144 of 2002 dated June 27, 2002, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a writ of ceritiorari.2. The case of the delinquent/petitioner is as follows:(a) The petitioner was appointed on November 15, 1983 as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II in the Transport Department through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner was -served with a charge memo, dated November 22, 1995 by the first respondent alleging that while the petitioner was working as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II Saidapet at Meenambakkam Unit Office, he abused his official position to get bribe. The said charge has been framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules (D&A;) Rules. In the charge memo, three charges were framed and the petitioner ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›