Chennai Court April 2007 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.
Elcot Power Controls Ltd. Vs. Special Committee Under Section 16-d of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST237(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition No. 12278 of 2007 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in Letter No. M3/6 7302/06 dated February 28, 2007 in so far as the assessment year 2000-01 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is concerned, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is concerned and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to entertain the application dated January 12, 2007 submitted by the petitioner under Section 16D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. The prayer in the writ petition No. 12279 of 2007 is for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent in Letter No. M3/67302/06 dated February 28, 2007 in so far as the assessment year 2000-01 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is concerned and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to entertain the app...
Dr. P. Arumugham Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, by Its Secretary, Health ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Reported in: (2008)1MLJ917
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. Prayer in W.P. Nos. 20113 to 20117 of 2006 are to quash the order of punishment of stoppage of increment for the varied period of 6 months to 2 years, without cumulative effect.2. In W.P. No. 14603 of 2006, petitioner seeks to quash G.O.(D) No. 743 Health & Family Welfare Department, dated 6.9.1994.3. Petitioner in all these writ petitions are same and he is challenging different orders passed by the third respondent imposing punishment of stoppage of increments ranging from 6 months to 2 years, without cumulative effect.4. The brief facts necesssary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows.(a) Petitioner joined in service as Assistant Surgeon in Government Medical Service and he was posted in Government Primary Health Centre in the year 1973 and he worked in various places. Petitioner was transferred in the year 1985 to ESI Wing and when the applications were filed before the Tribunal, he was working as Senior Assistant Surgeon, Government ...
P. Perumal Vs. A.V. Sureshbabu,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ160
ORDERDharma Rao Elipe, J.1. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the writ petitioners are referred to as the petitioners, the persons, who filed the original applications before the Tribunal are referred to as the respondents and the Official Respondents are referred to as per their Designations.2. The respondents were originally appointed as Surveyor-cum- Draftsmen, Typist-cum-Junior Assistants on consolidated salary, in the early 1980s, in the Survey and Land Record Department, for execution of updating of land records in two phased manner and they were provided with training at the cost of the Government. The said Scheme, undertaken by the Government for updating the land records, ended by about 1987 or 1988. Pursuant to the representations made by the respondents and taking into consideration the fact that the respondents were provided with training at the cost of the Government, the Government, on sympathetic grounds, had expressed its decision with regard to granting p...
K. Damodara Menon, Partner of Guru Industries, Now Vikas Industries Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST38(Mad)
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 5573 of 2001 dated 13.06.2001.2. The brief facts arising out of this Writ Appeal are as under:The appellant is a partnership firm and had started its industry with funds provided by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation ('TIIC' in short), the above mentioned third respondent. The initial borrowing was Rs. 1,00,000/- out of which more than Rs. 70,000/- had been consumed by way of laying the foundation for starting the industry. In the year 1983, there was a raid by the Commercial Tax Authority and proceedings were initiated against the appellant. After conducting the raid, the Department seized all the documents as well as the machinery though the same were still under hypothecation with the TIIC. There was also an attempt by the Revenue Authorities to bring the property to sale. Hence the appellant filed O.S. No. 290 of 1985 on the file of District Munsif Court,...
S. Sudhakar and Vs. S.S.P. Durairaj (Firm) and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: LC2007(2)247; 2008(36)PTC150(Mad)
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. Seeking interim injunction restraining the respondents and their agents fusing the copy right, using the trade mark and doing the act of passing off, the aforesaid O.A.Nos. 145, 146 and 147 of 2007 have been respectively filed. This Court was pleased to grant ad-interim injunction in absentia . of the respondents in respect of the aforesaid reliefs. The respondents have filed Application Nos. 1960, 1962 and 1964 of 2007 seeking to vacate the aforesaid ex parte order of ad-interim injunction in favour of the applicants. A.Nos.1961, 1963 and 1965 of 2007 have been filed seeking to suspend the ex parte order of interim injunction granted in favour of the applicants.2. For the sake of brevity and also to avoid confusion in referring to the respective parties, the plaintiffs are referred as applicants and the defendants are referred as respondents.3. The sum and substance of the case of the applicants is as follows:The first applicant is the Managing Director of the s...
Dr. T.K. Shanmugasundaram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]303ITR387(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records and proceedings of the third respondent culminating in the order PAN/G.I.R. No. AAVPA9986J dated March 22, 2007, and quash the same and direct the second respondent to hear and dispose of the appeal without insisting on the deposit of the amounts set out in the impugned order or any other amounts.2. For the assessment year 2004-05, an assessment order has been made against the petitioner. Aggrieved against the assessment order, it appears that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the second respondent-Commissioner (Appeals) on January 25, 2007, and it is stated to be pending. Even prior to that, on January 16, 2007, the petitioner made an application under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act before the Income-tax Officer, Ward No. XIV(4) Chennai - 34, not to treat the asses-see as a defaulter pursuant to the notice issued by the Income...
K.M. Corporation Represented by M. Nagarajan, Partner and M. Shanmugam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: (2008)11VST782(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. By consent both the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal, as the prayer in these two writ petitions is one and the same seeking for a declaration that the words 'provided further no appeal filed by any person objecting to an order passed (a) under Sub-section (3) of Section 31, shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof for payment of the tax as ordered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner' in Section 4 of the TNGST (4th Amendment) Act, 1999 Act 14 of 1999 to be violative of the fundamental right to carry on business and trade, right to life and personal liberty and due process of law guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), Article 21 and 265 of the Constitution of India and therefore unconstitutional. The argument advanced are made common for both the writ petitions.2. The petitioners filed OPs 499 and 450 of 2003 before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal challenging the above said provision and on abolition of t...
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - Ii Vs. Engineer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: [2008]297ITR386(Mad)
ORDERA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the order passed in Crl.R.C. No. 136/1993 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, against the order in Crl.M.P. No. 2597 of 1992 in C.C. No. 127 of 1991 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. The accused in C.C. No. 127 of 1991 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, have filed Crl.M.P. No. 2597 of 1992 under Section 245 of Cr.P.C., for discharge of them from the offence alleged against them in C.C. No. 127 of 1991. The learned trial judge, after going through the affidavit to the petition and also the counter filed by the respondent, has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge, the accused have preferred a criminal revision petition No. 136/1993 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Sessions judge, after giving due deliberations to the submissions made by the learned Counsel on both sid...
Nanjappa Gounder S/O. Karuppa Gounder Vs. N. Subramaniam S/O. Nallasam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: 2007(3)CTC437; (2007)2MLJ1225
C. Nagappan, J.1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 31.1.1996, passed in A.S. No. 105 of 1991 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam reversing the judgment and decree, dated 18.12.1990, made in O.S. No. 682 of 1985 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. 2.The appellant filed the suit seeking for a decree declaring his title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.The case of the plaintiff is that he entered into an agreement of sale with the second defendant on 25.8.1978 to purchase the suit properties and took possession of the same on the same date and the second defendant executed a sale deed on 29.11.1978 and completed the contract and the sale relates back to the date of agreement since the plaintiff was put in possession on the said date. It is further stated...
Lourduswamy A. Vs. Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-2007
Reported in: [2008(116)FLR271]; (2008)IILLJ31Mad
Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed challenging the order of dismissal from service on the alleged ground of theft of railway property.2. The appellant herein joined the Railways as a Rakshak on February 21, 1969 and on the charge that one Ponnusamy Nadar, who was involved in a case of theft of Railway properties, had given a confessional statement that the offence was committed with the support and connivance of some RPF Staff including the appellant, a show-cause notice dated November 7, 1981 was issued. The appellant submitted his explanation on November 20, 1981. By order dated December 2, 1981, the Security Officer, Southern Range, dismissed the appellant from service with effect from December 9, 1981 forenoon without holding any enquiry to establish the charge. The appellant preferred an Appeal to the Appellate Authority on December 14, 1981, but the same was rejected by the Chief Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »