Chennai Court November 2012 Judgments

Mohameed Sathak Dastagir Matriculation School, Run by Mohamed Sathak T ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of 2nd respondent dated 03.06.2011 and quash the same. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order of 2nd respondent dated 09.02.2012 and quash the same.) R. SUBBIAH, J. 1. Writ Petitioner School, which is a Recognized Private School, has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 03.06.2011 passed by Private School Fee Determination Committee on the ground of arbitrariness and that it is not in conformity with Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 2009). 2. Writ Petitioner School is run by a Minority Educational Trust (Religious Minority). Petitioner school has recognition for Classes L.K.G. to XII Standard. The total number of students studying in the Petitioner school ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/S. Shantiniketan Property Foundat ...

Court: Chennai

(APPEALs under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 30.09.2008 made in I.T.A.Nos.777 and 2131 /Mds/2007 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.) COMMON JUDGMENT: The Revenue is on appeals as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relating to assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Following is the question of law raised for consideration:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80IB?" 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of promoting, developing and construction of residential flats. It is seen from the facts narrated that it had entered into an agreement with the owner of land admeasuring 147062 sq.ft at Adambakkam for the development of a Group Housing residential complex by name Kadambari, Avaram, Thamarai, Parijatham, Gurinji, Kasthuri, Manjari and Neelam...

Kesavan and Others Vs. Muthu

Court: Chennai

(Prayer:-SecondAppeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.72 of 2000 dated 6.7.2001 in reversing the well considered judgment and decree of the Court of the II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet in O.S.No.1317 of 1995 dated 20.7.1999.) The plaintiff Muthu Gounder filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction and in the event of defendants succeed in trespassing upon the suit property, for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The suit was dismissed. Appeal was filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.72 of 2000. The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree of dismissal was set aside. The suit was decreed granting the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. As against which, the defendants 2 to 6 have filed the second appeal. 2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1) Whether the lower ...

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-i Vs. M/S. JaIn Housing and Co ...

Court: Chennai

(APPEAL under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 09.10.2009 made in I.T.A.No.519/Mds/2009 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2004-05.) CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. This Tax Case (Appeal), filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2004-05, was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) when the assessee company has not furnished the necessary completion certificates?" 2. It is seen from the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act that the Assessing Officer allowed the claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act even in respect of projects which are not covered by necessary completion certificates, as required und...

Shanu. V. Mahtani and Others Vs. the Commissioner Corporation of Chenn ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order Z.O.VIII/R.D.C. No.R2/SPL/2012 dated 12.6.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents, their subordinates, employees, agents to sub divide the assessment of the property and change the name of the assessment in favour of the petitioners herein, relating to the property at JVL Towers basement area measuring 4000/48783 sq.ft. inclusive of common area in the northern half, bearing Door No.117, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai 29.) Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. It has been stated that the third petitioner is the co-owner of the property bearing Door No.117, Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai, having an undivided share in the said property. The property in question is a commercial building, which has...

Thangavel (Died) Lr.S and Others Vs. Chidambaram and Another

Court: Chennai

(Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri dated 09.01.2009 made in A.S. No.11 of 2008 modifying the judgment and decree of the District Munsiff, Krishnagiri dated 27.02.2008 made in O.S.No.134 of 2004.) The defendants 1 to 4 in the original suit are the appellants in the second appeal. The plaintiff is the first respondent and the 5th defendant in the suit is the 2nd respondent in the second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred in accordance with their ranks in the original suit. 2. The plaintiff Chidambaram, filed initially O.S.No.183/2001 on the file of Sub Court, Krishnagiri. Subsequently, due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif courts, the suit came to be transferred to the court of the District Munsif, Krishnagiri and re-numbered as O.S.No.134/2004. The said suit was filed praying for the relief of partition claiming 1/5th share in t...

Madras University Teacher's Association rep. by Its General Secretary ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the first and second respondent dated 23.7.2012 in sofar as the election of the 4th respondent is concerned and set aside the nomination of the 4th respondent to the Search Committee and consequently quash the notification/order of the 3rd respondent dated 10.9.2012 vide G.O.(1D)No.259, Higher Education (H1) Department, and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to hold the election to nominate a member from the Syndicate to serve as a Member of Search Committee.)This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the respondents 1 and 2 dated 23.7.2012 insofar as the election of 4th respondent is concerned and set aside the nomination of 4th respondent to the Search Committee and consequently quash the notification issued by the third respondent in G.O.(1D)No.259 Higher Education Department, dated 10.9.2012 and direct the respondents ...

M/S. Sri Durga Metals, Rep. by Its Proprietor- Mrs. Shruthi Tibrewal a ...

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant refund of 4% Additional duty paid in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Customs as per the Petitioner's representation dated 28.8.2012.) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 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 third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 28.08.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 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 third respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 28.08.2012, on merits and in ...

H.S. Bilkis Ayoob Vs. Mrs. Hamsa Krishnan

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2013(1)MWN(Cr)DCC57; 2012(4)MLJ(Crl)752

(PRAYER :Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the case in C.A.No.413 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.7107 of 1997, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and acquit the petitioner. PRAYER :Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the case in C.A.No.416 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.4008 of 1998, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and acquit the petitioner. PRAYER :Criminal Revision is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the case in C.A.No.415 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence made in C.C.No.1894 of 1998, on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,...

C. Somu Vs. Regional Transport Authority

Court: Chennai

(Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioners application dated 21.09.2012 for replacement of vehicle in respect of petitioners Mini bus TN-23/N-0444 permitted to ply on the route Thiyagapuram to Sholingur Vinayakar koil forthwith instead of canceling the 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 application, dated Issue on 05.11.2012 21.09.2012, 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, th...