Chennai Court April 2008 Judgments
A. Srinivasan and ors. Vs. District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad211
D. Murugesan, J.1. The issues raised for consideration in the writ appeals and writ petitions are common and hence they are taken up together for disposal by this common order.2. The points projected in the writ appeals and writ petitions are as to whether the appellants/writ petitioners to whom the leases were granted for quarrying stone in the respective virgin areas prior to the amendment of Sub-rule (8) of Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, vide G.O. Ms. No. 391 Industries (MMC-I) Department dated 17th November, 2000 are entitled to quarry only for a period of five years or are entitled to quarry for a period of ten years in terms of the amended rule and whether the said amended rule is applicable only to fresh virgin quarries,3. Before adverting to the issues, a reference can be made to the bone of contentions on facts. It is the contention of the appellants/writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the lessees') that they are the leaseholders for q...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Natarajan and N. Lakshmi Vs. K.V. Anantharaj,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ94
S. Tamilvanan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Order, dated 11.09.2006 made in I.A. No. 273 of 2005 in O.S. No. 72 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram. 2. The appellants herein, as plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 72 of 2005 before the trial court, against the respondents, seeking decree of mandatory injunction 1) directing the respondents herein to hand over the possession of the suit property, namely, P.V. Polytechnic College, Tindivanam every alternate year as provided under the compromise deed, dated 11.06.2001. 2) directing the second respondent herein to hand over the Chairmanship of Rajas Educational Trust to the first appellant or his family members every alternate three years, as provided under the compromise deed, dated 11.06.2001 and 3) declaring the resolutions passed by the respondents on 28.03.2004 are null and void.3. The Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 273 of 2004 had been filed under Order XXXIX...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ganesa Reddiar and ors. Vs. C. Krishnasamy Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ144
M. Jaichandren, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2005, made in A.S. No. 11 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.01.2004, made in O.S. No. 403 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif, Ponneri.2. For the sake of convenience the parties in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the suit in O.S. No. 403 of 1993. 3. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in the present second appeal has filed the suit in O.S. No. 403 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif, Ponneri, praying for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Since the appellant had died during the pendency of the present second appeal, his legal representatives have been brought on record by an order of this Court, dated 11.02.2008, made in M.P. No. 1 of 2008 in S.A. No. 933 of 2006.4. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint, are as follows:a) ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. N. Krishnaveni Vs. P.L. Narasimha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ78
ORDERK. Venkataraman, J.1. The 82 years old decree Holder, who could not prosecute the decree of eviction obtained by her mother, has knocked the doors of justice by filing the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.((NPD)No. 3699 of 2007. The Judgment debtor, who is trying to stall the execution of the decree of eviction is also before this Court in filing the Revision in C.R.P. No. 3478 and 3942 of 2007.2. C.R.P. No. 3478 of 2007 was filed by the judgment debtor challenging the order made in E.A. No. 136 of 2007 in E.P. No. 12 of 1993 of the learned District Munsif at Alandur. C.R.P. No. 3942 of 2007 had been filed by the above said judgment debtor, against the order dated 6.9.2007 of the learned District Munsif, Alandur made in I.A. No. 2737 of 2007 in O.S. No. 556 of 1997, in which he is the defendant. C.R.P. No. 3699 of 2007 had been filed by the landlady challenging the order made by the learned District Munsif, Alandur dated 27.07.2006 in E.P. No. 12 of 1993 in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1978....
Tag this Judgment!Jawahar Santhakumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ994
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The petitioner was directly recruited as the Deputy Collector by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1985. It is seen from the materials placed on record that when the juniors of the petitioner, including Mr.N.Mathivanan, the 4th respondent herein, were promoted to the grade of District Revenue Officer (DRO) w.e.f. 25.1.1995, without promoting him, he filed O.A. No. 1 69 of 1995 before the Tribunal, praying to consider his name for inclusion in the panel of District Revenue Officers for the year 1994, without reference to the adverse remarks and censure suffered for him in 1988. 2. The Single Member of the Tribunal, by the order dated 7.2.1995 has allowed the said O.A. and directed the Government to consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the panel of District Revenue Officers for 1994-95, without reference to the belated order of censure passed on the petitioner. Thereupon, the Government filed Review Application No. 70...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. C.M.K. Reddy Vs. the Settlement Commission (it/Wt), Additional Ben ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: [2008]306ITR403(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Settlement Commission dated 21.01.2004 and consequently direct the first respondent to take up the application filed by the petitioner under Section 245C(1) for the assessment years 1990-91 to 2000-01 and proceed further for settlement of disputes.2. The petitioner is a doctor. On a survey conducted on 06.02.2001 under Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act, it was noticed that the petitioner had not filed return of income for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1994-95 during which period he had made huge investments in the construction of hospital cum hotel complex. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was served on the petitioner on 29.03.2001 for the assessment years 1989-90 to 2000-01. The writ petitioner filed returns for the assessment years 1990-91 to 1995-96 on 15.03.2002 and for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2000-01 on 08.03.2002. The assessments for the...
Tag this Judgment!R. Anbazhagan Deputy Manager (Mechanical) Tamilnadu Newsprint and Pape ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ200
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioner was working as the Deputy Manager in Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited(TNPL) at the time of filing of the writ petition. It is informed that subsequently he has resigned. The fourth respondent made an application to the Public Information Officer of TNPL seeking informationunder the Right to Information Act ('the Act' in short) regarding the details of the petitioner's annual gross income. The fourth respondent had not given any reasons for this request. The Chief Manager, Human Resources of TNPL by his letter dated 19-10-2006 declined to give the information on the ground that it is of a personal nature and that it would not be revealed to a third person without the authorisation of the concerned employee. The letter also informed the fourth respondent that TNPL was not bound by the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by this, the fourth respondent filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. The first respondent-Commission passed the impug...
Tag this Judgment!Sumangala Steels Ltd. Vs. the Chairman, Tamilnadu Sales Tax Appellate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: (2009)21VST394(Mad)
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The appeal is filed by the assessee questioning the correctness of the order dated 23.10.2003 made in writ petition No. 38269 of 2002 since reported in 137 STC 517. 2. The appellant is a dealer in iron and steel and an assessee on the file of the third respondent. For the assessment year 1997-98 the appellant assessee filed return reporting total and taxable turnover of Rs. 17,95,64,901/- and Rs. 4,72,07,862/- respectively under the Central Sales Tax Act. On the basis of the return, assessment order was passed on 24.03.2002 arriving at the taxable turnover as follows:1. Interstate sales covered by C form Rs. 11,46,763/- at 4%2. Consignment Sales not covered by Form F Rs. 88,25,714/- at 8%3. Stock transfer to Bangalore branchnot by Form F Rs. 3,72,35,862/- at 8%---------------------------Rs. 4,72,07,862/----------------------------3. After framing of the assessment, as aforesaid, the appellant filed certain Form-F for Rs. 3,72,35,714/- pertaining to the turnove...
Tag this Judgment!indo International Ltd. Rep. by Its Director, Mr. Umraomal Lodha and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ1058
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. All these review applications have been preferred by petitioner against common judgment dated 8th Jan., 2008, passed in W.A. Nos. 1138 to 1144 of 2007.2. The main ground taken for review is that the court has made certain observations without noticing the averments made in the writ petition and other documents, which learned Counsel wanted to rely giving effect to error of observation made with regard to the financial condition of the petitioners.One of the question raised for determination in these review applications is whether the court is supposed to refer each and every ground and document, if not specifically raised by counsel for the party nor relies upon at the time of hearing of the case.3. For proper appreciation of the review applications, it is desirable to notice certain facts as mentioned hereunder:Two of the petitioners are companies whereas the rest of the petitioners are Directors/Officials. For violating the provisions of the Foreign Excha...
Tag this Judgment!Rupa and Co. Ltd. Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commerc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2008
Reported in: (2008)17VST303(Mad)
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The appellant challenged the assessment order dated 30th June, 2003, passed by the 2nd respondent, Commercial Tax Officer, Central Circle-I, Tirupur, in CST No. 314614/2001-2002 on the ground that the respondent made assessment in violation of clarification given by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai, vide order dated 11th Jan., 2002, Learned single Judge by impugned order dated 28th Aug., 2003, disposed of the writ petition, W.P. No. 21170/03 without deciding the claim on merit, there being an alternative remedy of appeal.2. The main plea taken by the appellant/petitioner is that learned single Judge, instead of asking the appellant to move in appeal, should have decided the writ petition on merit, the order of assessment being without jurisdiction and against law.3. The appellant is a manufacturer and dealer in cotton hosiery goods. According to the appellant, as per notification issued on 5th March, 1997 by the respondent, hosiery goods were genera...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »