Chennai Court September 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.
A. Shankar Suresh, Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ655
K. Suguna, J.1. This writ appeal has been filed as against the order passed in W.P. No. 9446 of 1995 dated 22.11.2002. The petitioners in the writ petition are the appellants in this appeal.2. The property in question is an agricultural land in the Melamadi Village, Madurai North. Originally they were given to the temple Archakaras of Kallalagar Devasthanam of Alagar Kovil, Madurai as a Service Manibam land. After the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 (Act 30 of 1963), came into force, an enquiry was conducted by the settlement Tahsildar and patta was granted in favour of one Pappammal. But on appeal, the same was cancelled. Consequential changes in the Taluk and Village records were made on the request of the sixth respondent infavour of whom, the same was originally given and a sum of Rs. 1,28,480/- was fixed as Fair Rent by the Tahsildar, Madurai on 17.07.1995 and the said amount was also remitted by him.3. According to the learned Counsel for ...
Parle Products Private Limited represented hereIn by It's Area Sales M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: LC2007(3)438; 2007(35)PTC542(Mad)
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The applicant in A.No. 4056 of 2006 is the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that it has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing interalia, biscuits and confectioneries. According to them, they had developed a new and original packet design, having several novel features in its shape, configuration and surface pattern. These designs were accepted and duly registered under Design Registration Nos. 185711, 185712 and 185713, dated 31.05.2001 in Class 09-01 under the provisions of Designs Act, 2000 and the Designs Rules, 2001. The applicant also developed two other new and original biscuit packet designs. These designs were also accepted and duly registered under Design Registration Nos. 188156 and. 188157, dated 18.02.2002 in Class 09-07 under the provision of Designs Act, 2000 and Designs Rules 2001. The registrations of the said designs are valid and subsisting. According to the applicant, the particular feature of the design is that the pa...
V. George Vincent Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: (2008)14VST60(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. Notices were issued by the respondent on September 12, 2005, proposing to assess the petitioner to tax on the basis of best of judgment, for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, after a report from enforcement wing officers of the department. The petitioner submitted separate replies on September 28, 2005. Thereafter the respondent passed two separate assessment orders dated June 29, 2007 demanding payment of tax as well as imposing a penalty of 150 per cent of the tax demanded. Challenging these assessment orders the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.2. Heard Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pala. Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.3. There is no dispute about the fact that the certificate of registration of the petitioner was cancelled with effect from April 1, 1994. There is also no dispute about the fact that the petitioner surrendered the unused '...
V. Dhanasekaran, Vs. M. Ganesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ533
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 6635 of 1997 dated 28.1.2005, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 to 9 herein.2. The respondents 1 to 9 herein/writ petitioners filed W.P. No. 6635 of 1997 with a prayer to quash G.O.Ms. No. 237 Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, dated 26.9.1996 including the abstract thereto and the consequential order of the third respondent in the writ petition/12th respondent herein dated 30.12.1996 with a direction to implement the promotion panel dated 23.6.1995 by promoting the respondents 1 to 9 herein/writ petitioners.3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:(a) The respondents 1 to 8 have joined as Junior Assistant in the Municipal Service and the 9th respondent joined as Attender and all were holding the post of Junior Assistant in the Salem Corporation at the time of filing of the writ petition. Untill the S...
T.K. Ananda Sayanan Vs. the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(5)CTC1; [2008(1)JCR553(Mad)]
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The question posed before the Full Bench is whether the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India can be invoked in each and every case of suspension, termination or other orders passed in relation to the services of an employee of a co-operative society and whether a writ petition can be filed on that basis. 2 (i) The appellant claims to have been given charge as a Secretary of the second respondent-Co-operative Society from 01-09-2006. On 23-01-2007, one Pitchandi was transferred as Secretary of the second respondent. Since the appellant feared that his avenue of promotion would be curtailed, he filed W.P. No. 6712 of 2007 to quash the order dated 23-01-2007. Interim order was granted on 26-02-2007 and the petitioner continued as Secretary in the second respondent-society. Thereafter, the second respondent placed the appellant under suspension by order dated 14-03-2007 allegedly in order to circumvent the order of stay. (ii) The petitioner filed W.P....
R. Vellingiri and Mrs. Gokila Vs. R. Kannaian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2007
Reported in: 2008(1)CTC130; (2008)1MLJ1123
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 1024 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, are the appellants in the above second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above second appeal are set-out below:The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and possession to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties and for directing defendants 1 to 4 to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and for a further direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to pay future mesne profits. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant is their brother; their father-Rangasamy Naidu took a vacant land on lease from S.P.Narasimmalu Naidu Trust, the fifth defendant, for ground rent and put up a super-structure thereon with his own funds; Rangasamy Naidu on his free will and violation, e...
R. Giri Vs. the Regional Transport Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: AIR2008Mad95; (2007)6MLJ509
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner is a mini bus operator and he made an application dated 13.11.2003 to the respondent for grant of mini spare bus permit. As the said application was rejected by the respondent, the petitioner filed statutory appeal in Appeal No. 330 of 2003, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Tribunal, by an order dated 06.01.2004, set aside the order of the respondent and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, in the light of the observation contained therein. Thereafter, the respondent by letter dated 22.03.2004, requested the petitioner to produce necessary documents in respect of vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-25-Z-8701 for issuance of permit. On production of the same, the mini spare bus permit was granted for a period of five years, upto 01.06.2009 and also the tax was collected at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per quarter.2. The petitioner further submitted that on 18.10.2004, his application for replacement of the vehicle bearing R...
V. Babu Rajan Vs. the Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: (2007)6MLJ513
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner, is a driver in Government Primary Health Centre, Vellore District and aggrieved by the notice dated 26.07.2005 issued by the Office of the Assistant Director, Department of Health and Family Welfare, directing him to pay Rs. 64,666/- towards the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, he has filed the present Writ Petition.2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: On 15.02.1992 about 6.15 p.m., a jeep bearing Registration No. TCW 4782, driven by the petitioner, dashed against a Mopet bearing Registration No. TAJ 6579, driven by one Mr. Olaganathan. His brother was travelling as a pillion ridder in the said mopet. At the instance of said Olaganathan, F.I.R., was lodged against the petitioner. The Judicial Magistrate, Arani in STC. No. 565/92, held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep. The driver of the Mopet, Mr. Olaganathan, made a claim in M.C.6.P. No. 89 of 199...
Ad Add Rep. by Its Proprietor, R. Murali Vs. the Additional Appellate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: (2009)20VST94(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent in his check memo dated 16.02.2004, demanding the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax, as pre-deposit for admitting the appeal. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the first respondent herein, to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1998-99 under the TNGST Act, 1959 without insisting on payment of 2% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit.2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner is an advertisement consultant. He was under the bona fide impression that the transactions relating to his business will not fall under the purview of the definition 'Right to Use', and are liable for assessment under Section 3A of the TNGST Act, 1959. Therefore, the petitioner did not register themselves as dealers under the said Act and did not file their returns. Based on the inspection conduct...
Nehru Service Centre Rep. by Its Partner, M.R. Muthuraman Vs. the Depu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2007
Reported in: (2009)19VST262(Mad)
ORDERS. Manikumar, J.1. The petitioner, a registered dealer in petroleum products, under the Pondicherry Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. He has challenged the order of assessment dated 26.07.20062. Brief facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows:The petitioner states that the petroleum products were supplied by Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai and the payment was made by way of Demand Draft. He has received 'C' declaration forms as per Section 8(4) of the Central Sales Tax Act in order to avail the concessional rate of tax at 4%, as the Petrol, Diesel and other lubricating oils are taxable at 11% at the point of first sale. Based on the purchase orders placed by the petitioner, the seller, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation, a registered dealer under the TNGST Act, 1959, despatched the petroleum products to the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have obtained 'C' declaration forms from the respondent and issued to the seller, viz., the Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai. If...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »