Chennai Court October 2012 Judgments

R. Mahalakshmi and Others Vs. Government of Tamilnadu Rep by Secretary ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration as stated therein.) C. Nagappan, J. 1. The prayer in all the writ petitions is one and the same and the petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of Declaration declaring Sections 4 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 2012 (Act 13 of 2012) insofar as it relates to insistence of Lifetime Tax for Transport vehicles covered under Part I and Part II of 7th Schedule and Part I of 8th Schedule as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and hence they are disposed of by this common Order. 2. For the sake of convenience, we mention the facts of the case in W.P.No.15267 of 2012. The petitioner Mahalakshmi is the present owner of Toyota Innova vehicle and the said vehicle was originally purchased by M/s.Sona Mobility Services Limited from Lanson Toyota by invoice dated 31.5.2007 for a sum of Rs.7,90,684/- and at the time of sale, a sum of Rs...

Parameswari and Others Vs. A. Kumar and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)TNMAC439

(Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award made in M.C.O.P. No.385 of 2008 dated 09.12.2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Erode.) COMMON JUDGMENT: R. BANUMATHI, J. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs.25,95,000/- awarded for the death of Annadurai in a road traffic accident on 29.05.2008, the Claimants have preferred C.M.A.No.3051 of 2010 praying for enhancement of compensation. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation, Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.2761 of 2012. Since both the appeals arise out of the same Award, both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts are that on 29.05.2008, deceased Annadurai was travelling in Maruthi Omni van bearing registration No.TN-33 AW 7689 in Mettur-Bhavani Main Road proceeding from north to south. When the van nearing Kuttamuniappan Kovil, Thandavapuram bus stop, the drive...

M/S. Shree Nursingsahay Mudungopal Engineers Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commercial T ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings, in G.D.No.63/2012-13 dated 19.10.2012 and quash this detention order as illegal and direct the respondent to release the goods detained in.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for taxes, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. By consent of both the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. In view of the similar orders passed by this Court, in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 21.12.2010, made in W.P.No.29050 of 2010, the following order is passed: i) The petitioner shall pay the amount of tax demanded by the authority concerned, who had passed the detention order. ii) On payment of such tax amount, the goods detained shall be released and the same shall be subject to the final adjudication order, which may be passed by the authority concerned. iii) It is...

M/S. Sterling Holiday Resorts and Another Vs. Central Government Secre ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order of the Company Law Board dated 10.8.2005 made in C.P.No.36 of 2002) 1. C.M.A.No.3647 of 2005 is filed by respondents 1 and 9 in C.P.No.36 of 2002 against the order of Company Law Board directing the Central Government to appoint two Directors on the Board of Directors of the Company for a period of two years from the date they assume charge. 2. The few facts which are relevant for consideration herein are that M/s. Sterling Resorts and Hotels India Ltd. was incorporated on 22.05.1986 as a Private Limited Company. Thereafter, it was converted into a Public Limited Company with effect from 11.12.1989. The company is a first to launch time share product. The first product was structured as “Property Time Share” in and under which the buyer has the right of joint ownership of a specified apartment in a specified resort for a week every year for perpetuity and during 1992, the product was chang...

Minor Vimal Kumar Vs. Venktesan and Another

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(2)MLJ65

(Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2007 passed in A.S.No.52 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 20.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.208 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli. ) The second appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the reversing judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. 2. The brief facts, which led to the filing of this second appeal, are as follows: (i) The plaintiff is the appellant herein and the defendants are the respondents herein. (ii) The suit properties originally belonged to one Narayanasamy , son of Rangasamy at Melakuppam village Hamlet of Ammeri village, which was sold under Ex.A.1, the registered sale deed dated 19.8.1991 in favour of the plaintiff by appointing his grandfather Krishnasamy as guardian for proper and valuable consideration of ...

A. Bharathi Vs. the University of Madras Represented by Its Registrar ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent University of Madras Letter No.A-II/PSG/Sir-Theagaraya/2011/1196 dated 18.10.2011, quash the same and further direct the first respondent / University of Madras to give Qualification Approval to the petitioner for her appointment as Lecturer in Zoology in the 4th respondent college forthwith by passing orders on the proposal dated 29.09.2011. Prayeramended as per order dated 04.10.2012 made in M.P.No.2 of 2012) 1. The petitioner joined the fourth respondent college initially in an unaided post of Lecturer in Zoology on 24.07.2006. She belongs to Most Backward Class. She possessed M.Sc. (Zoology) and M.Phil (Zoology). She passed M.Sc., with 69.5% and obtained 80.5% in M.Phil. 2. The second respondent, Director of Collegiate Education, permitted the fourth respondent college to fill up 20 posts...

P. Veerappan Vs. Mariammal

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Civil)111; 2013(1)LW356

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal dated 29.09.2008 made in A.S.No.6 of 2008 reversing the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif at Karaikal dated 11.12.2007 made in O.S.No.268 of 2005.) 1. The defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent Mariammal as plaintiff, filed O.S.No.268/2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif at Karaikal praying for the relief of prohibitory injunction as against the defendant from in any manner interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for other reliefs. The suit was dismissed by the said court. As against the same, the respondent herein/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge at Karaikal. The appellant herein/defendant has also preferred an appeal in A.S.No.6 of 2008 praying to ...

V. Devasia Vs. the State Transport Authority and Others

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents and their subordinates to receive tax for Tamil Nadu for seven days or thirty days or ninety days as tendered voluntarily in advance by petitioner for using vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-01-AA-0880 in Tamil Nadu Roads.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the issues involved in the present writ petition are covered by the order of this Court, dated 24.4.2007 made in W.P.Nos.15061 to 15063 of 2007, and the order , dated 27.04.2011, passed in W.P.No.11095 of 2011, wherein, this Court had directed the respondents therein to receive the tax, as and when it is voluntarily tendered, by the petitioners therein, in advance, for 7 days, 30 days or 90 ...

Indian Bank Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Spl. Range Andn ...

Court: Chennai

(Tax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 25.10.2007 passed in I.T.A.No. 1080/ Mds/ 2003 for the assessment year 1992-93. Tax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 25.10.2007 passed in I.T.A.No. 1081/ MDS/ 2003 for the assessment year 1997-98. Tax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 25.10.2007 passed in I.T.A.No. 1082/ MDS/ 2003 for the assessment year 1998-99.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. The above appeal is filed by the assessee/ Indian Bank as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment year 1992-93. The above Tax Case (Appeal) is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the addition in respect of appreciation in the value of...

V. Murugesan and Others Vs. the Regional Transport Authority Namakkal

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein Viz, the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal to implement the judgement of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal made in A.No.41/2012 dated 3.08.2012 for the issue of 5 Seater Share Auto Permit.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice, if the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 26.09.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection for such an order being passed by this Court. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 26.09.2012,...