Chennai Court June 2007 Judgments
M. Krishnan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary and Commissi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ54
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya J.1. This writ petition, in public interest, was preferred by the petitioner for direction on respondents 1 to 5 to take action against the respondents 6 to 8 for running illegal stone crushing units at Kulasekaram Village and to initiate prosecution against them.2. The case of the petitioner was that respondents 6 to 8 have illegally installed three stone crushing units in different places and are emanating dust from the respective crushers causing health hazards to the residents of the neighbouring area and by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act 1958, as substituted vide Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, though it was mandatory to obtain licence from the panchayat for running factory or workshop in the vicinity, but they are running the stone crushers without such licence.3. A reference has been made to letter No. D.Dis.135/87 (M&M;) dated 25th Feb., 1987, written by the Collector, Kanyakumari District to the Commissioner, Agastheeswaram Panchayat Union. The complaint...
Tag this Judgment!Vallivalam Desikar Polytechnic Educational Society Rep. by Its Chairma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ584
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. All the above writ petitions are filed by Vallivalam Desikar Polytechnic Educational Society, Nagapattinam, represented by A. Appasamy, Chairman, Governing Council. In W.P. No. 17374 of 2005, petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider the explanations dated 21.11.2002, 7.1.2003, 14.3.2004 and 10.3.2005, submitted by the petitioner in response to the proceedings of the first respondent under Section 44(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, before proceeding under Section 44(4) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. In W.P. No. 15686 of 2006 petitioner seeks to quash the letter No. 34106/H2/2005 dated 26.4.2006 and consequently forbear the second respondent from in any manner dealing with the affairs and administration of the Vallivalam Desikar Polytechnic College, Nagapattinam. In W.P. No. 17006 of 2006, a declaration is sought for to declare the registration of the second respondent under the name 'Vallivalam Desi...
Tag this Judgment!Samuthra Vijaya Nainar and ors. Vs. Sirukadambur Masjid and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
Reported in: (2007)4MLJ580
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants against the order of transfer of the suit No. 230 of 1990 to the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram made by the learned District Munsif, Gingee.2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:The defendants are the revision petitioners herein. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The defendants contested the same by filing their written statement. The District Munsif Court, Gingee took the suit for trial and framed the issue of jurisdiction of the court as additional issue. After a full-fledged trial, the learned District Munsif, Gingee dismissed the suit on the issue of jurisdiction holding that the properties are Wakf properties and the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the same as per Section 85 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and further directed the parties to the suit to appear before the District Court, Villupuram. However, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Essen Earth Movers Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST69(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of assessment dated February 23, 2007 passed in TNGST/6221564/2000-2001 (Entry Tax) under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990.2. The facts leading to the writ petition are:The petitioner is a partnership firm providing for earth-moving machinery services. They are also civil works contractors and registered as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and they are not registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1990. The petitioner has further stated that they have purchased a TATA-HITACHI make excavator mounted on iron plates made into chain link from Tvl. Telco Construction Equipment Company Ltd., Puducherry (Pondy) through finance arrangement with Tvl. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Puducherry in the year 2000 through invoice No. 50177 dated July 14, 2000 and the machinery is used for excavating the earth and loading in lo...
Tag this Judgment!Kolla Ravindra (Alias) K. Ravi Vs. Susheela Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(4)CTC786; (2007)5MLJ1372
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J.1. Challenge is made to an order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai made in RCA. No. 1340 of 2005 affirming the order of the Rent Controller, XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai made in RCOP. No. 2215 of 2004 by a common order dated 11.11.2005 along with other RCOPs. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. The respondent/ landlady filed four RCOP Nos. 2193, 2194, 2215 and 2216 of 2004 against the tenants, four in number, who were occupying the four shops in the building belonged to her alleging that the property in question was old and in a dilapidated condition and that it required immediate demolition and reconstruction, which would yield more income to the landlady and she has also applied to the Corporation of Madras seeking approval for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. Permission has also been granted and the plan has also been approved. Under the circumstances, she, bon...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Narayanan Housing Development Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC60; (2007)5MLJ1337
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 02.04.2007 seeking to quash the same as illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice.2. It is the case of the petitioner that a company by name M/s. Telematics Systems Limited was ordered to be wound up by this Court in C.P. No. 239 of 1997 vide order dated 18.07.2001. Pursuant to the same, the Official Liquidator took possession of the entire movable and immovable assets of the company. The petitioner company has offered Rs. 13,55,00,000/-. The petitioner was accepted as a highest bidder and this Court by order dated 03.11.2006 in Application No.834 of 2006 permitted the Official Liquidator to sell the entire property. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner company also remitted the entire sale consideration of Rs. 13.55 crores in two instalments. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the document for registration.3. The further c...
Tag this Judgment!E. Samy Vs. E. Muthaih,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ929
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. The petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10 of 2000 has come forward with this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22.11.2004 made in a memo filed by the petitioner.2. The above suit in O.S. No. 10 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for partition. The respondents are the defendants. On trial, preliminary decree was passed and then a final decree was also passed. Later, the Court has directed the petitioner to pay necessary stamp duty for drafting final decree. At that stage, the petitioner filed a memo of calculation regarding stamp duty to be paid by him. In the said memo, the petitioner has calculated the stamp duty on the basis of the market value as required under proviso (b) to Article 45 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. But the learned Subordinate Judge has rejected the memo with an observation that the petitioner should pay stamp duty for the actual market value of his share of...
Tag this Judgment!Colour Sense Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST434(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of assessment for 2005-2006. The firm reported a total turnover of Rs. 21,34,430.80 taxable at three per cent and the assessee produced several records in support of the returns and requested the respondent to accept the same and finalize the assessment for 2005-06.2. The petitioner has further submitted that since they are in the business of printing, they exercised their option under Section 3G of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for compounded rate of tax at three per cent and submitted a letter to the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer on January 10, 2005. It is the further case of the petitioner that for assessment year 2005-06, they have submitted monthly returns before the respondent by giving details of turnover, with the payment of sales tax at three per cent compounded for the entire sale value and the same was acknowledged by the respondent. In spite of the option under Section 3G of the Tamil Nadu Gener...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. K. Prakash and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: AIR2007Mad307
S.R. Singharavelu, J.1. This appeal arises against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Ootacamund, in O.S. No. 260 of 1990 dated 28-2-1992, in dismissing the suit for money claim against second defendant and decreeing only against first defendant. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit against second defendant, a guarantor, the plaintiff-bank has preferred this appeal.2. There was an overdraft facility obtained by first defendant from plaintiff-bank for his business and that was made at the instance of the request of first defendant on 19-5-1986. Second defendant guaranteed the repayment of the above said loan. Therefore, both joined together and executed a pronote on 19-5-1986 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of appellant/plaintiff-bank and that was marked as Ex. A-2. There was also a hypothecation deed under Ex. A-3 executed by both as security for the said loan. Thus, first defendant was the principal-debtor and second defendant was only a guarantor.3. A sum ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tvs Lean Logistics Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
Reported in: (2007)212CTR(Mad)523; [2007]293ITR432(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred these appeals on a vexed substantial question of law as to whether the expenditure on construction of building in a leasehold premises would amount to revenue expenditure, contrary to the clear provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2.1. The relevant assessment years are 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. The assessee claimed the expenditure incurred by it on construction of a building, concededly on leasehold land, as revenue in nature. But, the Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure by orders dated 23.3.2004 and 7.2.2005 respectively. Against the said orders, the assessee preferred appeals, which were, by common order dated 21.9.2005 dismissed by the Commissioner, upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 2.2. Contending that Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Act would cover the situations of construction on premises taken on lease, s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »