Chennai Court December 2011 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.
Ganapathy Asari (Died) and ors. Vs. Kadayanallur Pettai Magdoom
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
The Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.283 of 1998 by the Wakf Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent as plaintiff has filed Original Suit No.451 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession and subsequently as per notification issued by the Government of Tamilnadu bearing No.536 dated 24.10.1997, Original Suit No.451 of 1995 has been withdrawn and transferred from the file of the District Munsif Court, Tankasi to the file of the Wakf Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli and the same has been taken on file in Original Suit No.283 of 1998. 3. In the plaint it has been stated that the plaintiff is nothing but a Wakf and the suit property is nothing but a thatched shed and its appurtenant and the same has been let out to the defendant on monthly rental basis. Now the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff to the ...
M.Shakkila Vs. State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent, dated 27.08.2011, made in C.P.O/T.C/I.S./D.O.No.23/2011, and quash the same, and to produce the detenu, namely, Farook @ Sulaiman, Son of Ibrahim, aged about 25 years, confined in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 2. The petitioner has stated that the second respondent had passed the impugned detention order, dated 27.08.2011, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act,1982. (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), read with the order issued by the State Government, in G.O.(D) No.121, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18.07.2011, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, directing the detention of Farook @ Sulaiman, in the Centr...
The Balan Fine Arts, Sivakasi Vs. the Joint Commissioner Iii and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the first respondent dated 18.8.2000, by which, by exercising his suo motu revisional power against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) dated 7.2.1995 in respect of the assessment year 1992-1993, the first respondent has set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) and restored the order of the Assessing Officer. 2.1. The assessee was assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sivakasi on a total and taxable turnover of ` 5,62,233/- and ` 5,62,233/- respectively for the year 1992-1993 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Assessing Officer assessed the turnover of ` 1,73,190/- relating to sales of text books, rejecting the claim of the assessee for exemption, observing that the goods sold by the dealer are printed materials and not reading books. 2.2. Aggrieved against the said order of the Assessing Officer, the dealer has preferred an appeal before the App...
D.Chandrasekaran Vs. the Principal Secretary and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the second respondent District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli. The writ petition when it came up for admission on 19.3.2010, the learned Special Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the respondents and an interim stay was granted. 2.The petitioner was a repatriate from Srilanka on the basis of Sirimavo Sastri Pact signed during the year 1971 and he is a refugee. After he got his name registered with the employment exchange and after being sponsored by the employment exchange, he was appointed as an Office Assistant. At the time of his appointment, he claimed to have completed SSLC in old pattern. But he had failed in four subjects. He wrote the examinations conducted by the TNPSC for the 4th grade servant to be made as Junior Assistants. He wrote the tests during 1983 and 1986 at the Tiruchirappalli and Thuraiyur centres. Thereafter, his case was recommended by the Revenue Divis...
M/S.Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
The present revision is filed by the petitioner/assessee against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai dated 13.12.1999 passed in T.A.No.67 of 1999 raising the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the petitioner has collected Additional Sales Tax from the Electricity Board overlooking the fact that it is not the tax collected but reimbursement made by the Electricity Board ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the levy of penalty imposed under Section 12(5)(iii) of the TNGST Act, 1959?” 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- The assessee is a Government of India undertaking engaged in the execution of a turnkey works contract for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for erecting and commissioning a captive power plant, during the relevant assessment year viz., 1991-92. The petitioner/assessee reported a total turnover of Rs....
The Director of Income Tax Vs. M/S.Vallal M D Seshadri Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
The Revenue has preferred these tax case appeals as against the order dated 16.6.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.508 and 509/Mds/2011, suggesting the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing to grant registration under Section 12AA on violation of Sec.2(15) of the I.T.Act? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing to grant approval under Section 80G in violation of Rule 11AA of the IT Act?” 2. A reference to the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) shows that the application filed by the assessee for registration, under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, has been rejected at the threshold itself holding that one of the object clauses, namely, clause No.16 speaks about publishing newspapers in regional, national and English languages by establishing necessary facilities for...
V.C.Ravichandran Vs. Panneerselvam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-2011
This Civil Revision petition is focussed against the return made in unnumbered I.A.S.R.No.473 of 2011 in O.S.No.146 of 2004 dated 30.06.2011, on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The respondent herein filed the suit for partition as against 7 persons, including the petitioner herein, who was arrayed as second defendant who along with the defendants 3 to 7 remained exparte. However, the first defendant contested the matter and after full trial, a preliminary decree was passed; as against which, the first defendant preferred an appeal, which is now pending before the High Court. Meanwhile, the petitioner/second defendant alone filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get the delay of 1288 days condoned in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure to get set aside the e...
inside Cpcl Campus Vs. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
This writ petition is filed by the Chennai Petroleum Officers Association (Registered Association) to quash the notice dated 6.9.2011 issued by the respondent, namely, Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited. 2. The case of the petitioner-association are as follows: (a) The respondent-Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited is a Public Sector Undertaking owned by the Government of India, in which 750 officers are working and most of them are working in the plant area and administrative offices at Manali. The respondent-Corporation was established in the year 1969, which has got a plant at Manali, which employs about 1100 workers and 750 officers working in three shifts, besides a general shift; Morning shift - 6.15 a.m. to 2.15 p.m. Evening shift - 2.15 p.m. to 10.15 p.m. Night shift - 10.15 p.m. to 6.15 a.m. The working pattern was six days a week with two days off and working hours of 42 hours per week. For general shift, the working hours are from 7.30 a.m. to 5.18 p.m. from Monday to F...
P.Chithiraiselvan and anr. Vs. Hariharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
(i) Contempt Petition (MD)No.249 of 2008 and (ii) Contempt Petition (MD)No.251 of 2008. The Contempt Petition No.249 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner seeking to punish the respondent for having disobedience of the order passed by this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.2680 of 2008 dated 17.04.2008. 2.When the contempt petition came up on 12.07.2008, this Court directed the learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent appeared before this Court on 30.10.2008 and his presence was dispensed with. It was further stated by the learned Special Government Pleader that the Special Leave Petition filed by the State is pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the matter was adjourned from time to time. 3.The second Contempt Petition No.251 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner seeking to punish the very same respondent for having disobedience of the order passed by this Court in M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.No.3076 of 2008 dated 17.04....
V.Kannan and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2011
The first two writ petitions were filed against the order of the State Government dated 05.03.2009. By the impugned order, the State Government was acting on the basis of a letter sent by the Member of Legislative Assembly, Madurai West Constituency, stating that the two TASMAC retail shop Nos.5145 and 5329 were situated close to a school as well as a place of worship. 2.The Christian Higher Secondary School in the Town Hall Road Jammath which situated in the West Marret Street, Madurai have also sent representations in this regard. Therefore, the Principal Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department informed the two organizations viz., the R.G. of the Jammath Mosque, No.1, Town Hall Road, Madurai and the Principal of Christian Higher Secondary School, Madurai that reports were called from the officials including the District Collector, Madurai. On receipt of the said information, the General Manager, TASMAC informed the Senior Regional Manager, Madurai to act as per the...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »