Chennai Court September 2007 Judgments
M.L. Krishnamoorthy (Died) and Vs. the Government of Tamilnadu Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC465; (2008)1MLJ111
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. The Writ Appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the writ petition wherein the appellant herein sought for a writ of mandamus to forbear the second respondent from assessing the property tax for the various door numbers 204, 204-A, 204-B, 205 and 206 faces Thazhayatham Bazaar and D. Nos. 18, 18-A, 19 and 19-A faces Annaji Rao street, Gudiyattam N.A.A. District and direct the levy of property tax for the building as a whole.2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the appellant owned a building in the municipal limits of Gudiyattam Municipality. There were different portions let out to various tenants and each portion was given a separate door number by the second respondent Municipality for the purpose of identification. The grievance of the appellant is that the second respondent has levied tax for different door numbers as if the property is different without looking at the fact that the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ1397
P.D. Dinakaran, J.I - Issue1. Whether the order of re-transfer of the Drivers/contesting respondents herein working in the Institute of Road Transport, Driving Training School of the appellant Corporation to the original post of Drivers in the respective parent branches of the appellant Corporation amounts to reversion, even though the Drivers/contesting respondents were initially transferred on the existing service conditions and without any change in the grade, increment of pay etc.?II - Prayer2. W.A. No. 1478 of 2001 has been filed to set aside the order of the learned single Judge delivered on 2.11.1998 in W.P. No. 11161 of 1997 and W.A. No. 1471 of 2004 has been filed to set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 14.1.2003 made in W.P. No. 11655 of 2000, following the order dated 2.11.1998 made in W.P. No. 11161 of 1997.III - Undisputed facts of the case3.1. The admitted facts which led to the filing of these writ appeals are that the petitioners/contesting respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Rita Enterprises, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(122)ECC321; 2007(148)LC321(Madras); 2008(221)ELT28(Mad)
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. These writ appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 20799 of 2003 dated 8.10.2004, allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent. The first respondent in the writ petition/Warehousing Corporation being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge preferred W.A. No. 195 of 2005 and the respondents 2 to 4/Customs Department in the writ petitions preferred W.A. No. 402 of 2005.2. For convenience, the parties in this Judgment will be referred to according to their ranks in the writ petition.3. The case of the writ petitioner is that it imported 20,000 pieces of Glass Shell with fluorescent powder welding and 20,000 pieces of PCB plus cap plus base with wires from China after obtaining permission from the Customs Department and the same were warehoused in the Warehousing Corporation at Chennai, on 19.2.2002 and 21.2.2002. The writ petitioner also filed bill of entry on 6.3.2002 bearing No. 382146 to cl...
Tag this Judgment!Victory Timber and Saw Mill Vs. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Additio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST394(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the first respondent herein, in T. A. No. 389 of 2001 dated January 3, 2007 as illegal and invalid.2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner is a dealer in timber and had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,15,17,950 and Rs. 15,76,613 respectfully in the returns filed for 1992-93. The place of business of the petitioner was inspected on January 4,1993 and stock discrepancy to the tune of Rs. 80,913 was allegedly noticed at the time of inspection. Treating the said turnover as suppression, the petitioner was finally assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,16,79,776 and Rs. 17,38,439, respectively, as per proceedings, dated September 26,1994. The assessment was completed after verification of the books of accounts and the account books was also signed on June 28, 1994. Subsequently, the second respondent held that the petitioner had fur...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuraman Vs. Muthukumaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC722; (2008)1MLJ309
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. Challenging the order of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, in I.A. No. 1614 of 2005 in O.S. No. 913 of 2004 dated 19.08.2005, the petitioner has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition.2. Brief facts leading to the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:i) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 913 of 2004 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore, for judgment and decree against the defendant/petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 17,411.50 together with Principal and interest of Rs. 15,000/- and costs, on the basis of a promissory note which said to have been executed on 05.01.2003 by the revision Petitioner/defendant in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, in which, the revision petitioner/defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- together with interest at the rate of Rs. 100/- per Re. 1/-either to the plaintiff/respondent or to the person, nominated by him on demand. In spite of repeated demands through the associates of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Narasimhan and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: IV(2008)BC369
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Petitioners to the Civil Revision Petition, i.e., Directors of Uni Organic Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as Company), are the guarantors. The respondent/Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as Bank) is the financial institution which filed an application i.e. O.A. No. 87 of 1997, under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Chennai (in short, D.R.T.), for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,81,18,129.40. An ex parte order was passed in the said proceedings by the D.R.T. Steps were taken by the judgment-debtors to set aside that ex parte order. As there was a delay of 125 days in filing the said application, IA Nos. 1079 to 1090 of 2001 came to be filed. After hearing the parties, the D.R.T. passed a common order allowing all the applications on condition that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with the Decree Holder/Bank. The common order was challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Madurai Division Vs. Subbiah Foundry and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)16VST376(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian J.1. In this writ petition the correctness of the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal is put in issue. By the impugned order, the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal set aside the order passed by the petitioner in his proceedings dated October 29, 2002 non-suiting the petitioner for making an application under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 and further directed the petitioner to take the application of the first respondent on file and proceed further in accordance with law.2. The facts culminating in filing of this writ petition are as follows : The first respondent was the assessee and doing business in aluminium clamps and warps. For the assessment year 1995-96 the assessing officer passed a revised order levying tax at eight per cent on the sale of aluminium clamps and warps sold to Electricity Board with a liability of tax of Rs. 7,841, surcharge Rs. 1,776 and penalty at Rs. 11,271. The first r...
Tag this Judgment!Bannari Amman Sugars Limited Rep. by Its Chairman Vs. R. Sakthivel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: (2008)IIILLJ10Mad
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. Aggrieved over the fair and decreetal order dated November 24, 2006 passed by the District Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A. No. 2235/2006 in O.S. No. 2690/2006, C.R.P. No. 1729/2006 has been filed. While so, C.R.P. No. 1730/2006 has been preferred to strike off the plaint itself on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable.2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:The respondent originally filed O.S. No. 756/2006 against 1) M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. rep. by its Executive President and 2) M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Employees, Thrift and Credit Society rep. by its Secretary, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in anyway interfering with his day to day life and personal liberties either by causing danger to the person or otherwise under the guise of collecting money due to them. Thereafter the petitioner sent a letter dated April 7, 2006 requesting the respondent to remit a sum of Rs. 2,30,208.50 which has been received as advance by ...
Tag this Judgment!Commercial Tax Officer Vs. K.H. Shoes Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: (2009)23VST422(Mad)
ORDERChitra Venkataraman, J.1. The writ petition is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal allowing O.P. No. 474 of 2002, wherein, the assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the same are hit by the limitation provided under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. The assessment year relates to 1994-95. It is stated that the assessment order was originally passed on April 29, 1996, wherein, the taxability on the sales of I?EP licence was considered and the turnover exempted from taxation. Consequent on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered on May 1, 1996 in the case of Vikas Sales Corporation v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [1996] 102 STC 106 confirming the liability on the sale of REP licences, the assessing authority passed a revised assessment order relating to the turnover on sale of REP licence in his proceedings dated March 25, 1997. Thereafter, in respect of further t...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Coimbator ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2007
Reported in: (2007)10VST716(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the State against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, dated 30th January 2004 made in O.P. No. 138 of 2004, whereby the Special Tribunal set aside the order of the designated authority under the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 dated 19.12.2003 non-suiting the petitioner for making an application under the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The first respondent herein was assessed to tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as 'T.N.G.S.T. Act') on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,59,90,722/- and Rs. 54,46,425/- respectively by an order of assessment dated 8.10.1984 levying tax of Rs. 5,44,643/- and a penalty of Rs. 8,16,964/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority under the T.N.G.S.T. Act, 1959, the Appellate A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »