Chennai Court June 2009 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.
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Salem Divisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2009
Reported in: (2010)27VST192(Mad)
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. The State has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 27.06.2003 passed in CTSA. No. 460/2001. Question of law sought to be raised is as to whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the view of the lower appellate authority that there were no good grounds to invoke Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.2. The short facts are that for the assessment year 1993-94, the respondent herein placed all the records and accounts books relating to its transactions before the Assessing Officer including the turnover concerning the sale of 'Monafilament Niwar'. The Assessing Officer after perusing the relevant accounts books passed the order of assessment wherein the turnover relating to the sale of 'Monafilament Niwar' was excluded inasmuch as by a Circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued in D. Dis. Act Cell V/17554/93 dated 31.3.1993, the said item was exempted from payment of tax. The...
Crystal Trades, a Partnership Firm Rep. by One of Its Partners B. Laks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(169)LC205(Madras)
ORDERT. Raja, J.1. The Writ Petitions have been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings of the second respondent in C. No. VIII/10/368/04-Adj, C. No. VIII/10/367/04-Adj, C. No. VIII/10/366/04-Adj and C. No. VIII/10/365/04-Adj respectively dated 24.12.2004 and quash the same.2. In view of the interconnectivity of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order.3. The petitioners are manufacturers of refined Palm Oil of Edible Grade, for which the petitioners were issued RBD Palmolein. The petitioners' requirement was met by imports from Malaysia and Indonesia through Tuticorin Port.4. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have cleared their import of RBD Palmolein by claiming exemption under notification No. 45/2002, Customs, dated 22.04.2002 as amended from time to time. The said notification provides for clearance of the import...
S. Ramasubramanian Vs. Ambai Arts College Rep. by Its Secretary,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)6MLJ816
T. Raja, J.1. The present Writ Petition portraits sadly a harsh side of a retired employee who rendered unblemished 30 years of service as Assistant Librarian in the first respondent college's library. Though the writ petitioner filed writ petition seeking pensionary benefits, the first respondent college is reluctant to grant him his lawful retiral benefits even after 30 months from the date of his retirement. Hence, the present second Writ Petition filed for payment of interest on delayed retiral payment.2. Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after serving 30 years with the respondent Ambai Arts College without any adverse remarks, had to wait 22 months for sending the proposal of terminal benefits to the third respondent, the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli. Even after 30 months from the date of his retirement, the college authorities callously ignored the plight of the poor old retiree to get h...
M. Krishnamoorthy Vs. V. Rajalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ823
S. Palanivelu, J.1. The petitioner is first defendant in O.S. No. 232 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. The first and second respondents filed the suit against this petitioner and respondents 3 to 5, for Permanent Injunctions and for damages. The first and second respondents filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C, arraying 3 to 5 respondents herein as respondents against this petitioner for Temporary Injunction with regard to 'B' Schedule property till the disposal of the suit.2. Learned District Munsif, Poonamallee, after hearing the first and second respondents side and passed the following order which is challenged before this Court.Heard the petitioner side; Records perused; Petitioner is the owner - respondent is the tenant; The allegations is tenant causing damages to the properties; Hence, prima facie case made out: Balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and loss may be collected because of the dama...
D.P. Selvaraj Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ1361
ORDERM. Jaichandren, J.1. Heard Mr. K.Thennan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. S.Anitha, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was serving as Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub-Treasury, Coimbatore, at the time of his retirement, on 31.12.1995, on his attaining the age of superannuation. He was allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him, in view of G.O.(2D) No. 51, Finance (Treasuries and Accounts I), dated 28.12.1995. The disciplinary action had been initiated based on certain charges framed against the petitioner for alleged irregularities noticed by the special audit party of the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Madras, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, while the petitioner was acting as Superintendent Grade II at the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Treasuries and Accounts, ...
S. Balaraman Vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-10-2009
Reported in: 2009CriLJ3603
C. Nagappan, J.1. The appellant-Balaraman is the sole accused in Special Sessions Case No. 1 of 2004 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore and he has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him by judgment dated 8.11.2004 in the case. For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the appellant will be referred to as accused.2. Charges under Sections 376, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were framed against the accused. The learned Principal Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 376, IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.3. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 16 and marked Exs.P 1 to P19 and M.Os. 1 to 7.4...
M. Sasikumar Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ167
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 6250 of 1997, seeking to challenge the order, dated 28.7.97 passed by the fourth respondent. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 31256 of 2006. The respondents have filed a reply affidavit, dated Nil (2009), justifying the impugned order.2. The petitioner had passed 9th standard. His father late K. Madanagopal, while alive, was working as an Office Assistant in the Central Survey Office at Chennai. The petitioner applied for an appointment under compassionate ground. The petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant, by an order, dated 11.10.91. He also joined service as a OA on 15.10.91 and his services were regularised with effect from 16.10.91.3. The petitioner had passed the SSLC examination subsequently and therefore, requested for a posting as a Draftsman. The fourth respondent, by an order, dated 1.6.94 appointed the petitioner in the post of Draf...
K. Govindhan Vs. the Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ178
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The petitioner has filed O.A. No. 1334 of 1998, seeking to challenge the order of the third respondent, dated 21.7.1997. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 37470 of 2006. On behalf of the second respondent, a reply affidavit, dated 16.4.98 was filed. The first respondent has filed a so-called adoption reply affidavit, adopting the reply affidavit allegedly filed by the third respondent, by its affidavit, dated 6.2.99. But, so far no such affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. 2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was working as a Road worker in the third respondent Municipality. He got retired on 30.06.96 on reaching the age of superannuation, which was fixed as 60 years. However, it is claimed that by G.O.Ms. No. 263, MA&WS; Department, dated 6.10.94, the age of superannuation for the NMR Workers, working in Municipalities was fixed as 58 years and not 60 year...
K. Devaki Vs. the Superintendent, Central Prison
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)5MLJ107
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner has filed O.A. No. 2903 of 1997, seeking to challenge the order dated 27.11.1996 passed by the respondent, by which the petitioner's husband was declared to be a deserter and his name was struck off from the Rolls. On notice from the Tribunal, the respondent has filed a reply affidavit, dated 11.06.1997. Further, on direction from this Court, the original records relating to this case was also circulated.3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 26714 of 2006.4. The petitioner's husband was working as Warden Grade-II at the Central Prison, Salem with effect from 20.09.1977. He worked continuously from that date till 3.7.89. It was claimed that he suffered some mental illness and was attending to duty intermittently. In that way, he worked till 20.03.1995.5. It was claimed by the respondent that the petitioner's husband stopped from attending to his duty ...
V. Akilandeswari Vs. the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-09-2009
Reported in: (2009)227CTR(Mad)582; [2009]318ITR1(Mad); [2009]184TAXMAN22(Mad)
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides.2. The petitioner has filed these petitions seeking to challenge the order of the respondent, dated 19.12.2002 and to direct the respondent to delete the interest levied under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93. These two matters were came to be posted before this Court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, vide order, dated 20.4.2009. 3. The petitioner was a minor during the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93. A return of income was filed voluntarily on 31.12.97 declaring a taxable income of Rs. 1,13,440/-. The said return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 29.9.2000 determining the tax liability at Rs. 1,09,979/-. Interest under Sections 239A and 234B and 234C of the IT Act was levied after giving credit to to pre-assessment tax paid. Balance of Rs. 70,520/- was directed to be paid. The intimation under Section 143(1)(a) was served on the petitioner after a period of 2 yea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »