Chennai Court May 2012 Judgments
Arumugam Vs. the Principal Secretary Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-2012
PRAYERWrit petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.48405/2011/C1 dated 20.04.2012 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent by his proceedings in Rc.L1/11481/2012 dated 04.05.2012 and quash the same as illegal and consequentially to direct the respondents to issue the Form-C license to the petitioner to run the Cinema Theatre Viz., Balan Talkies Solavanthan, Madurai District in light of Rule 108 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1957.ORDER1. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for first and second respondents.2. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.3. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent da...
Tag this Judgment!M. Valarmathy Vs. State Rep. by the Secretary.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-2012
PrayerPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner's husband to attend the council meeting to be held on 16.05.2012 at Dindigul Panchayath Union Council, Dindigul District with police escorts from the Central Prison at Salem.ORDER1. The petitioner's husband is detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Before his detention, he was elected as a member of 18th ward in Karattalaganpatti village panchayat council, Dindigul District on 21.10.2011. He was not able to attend two meetings in view of his detention. In these circumstances, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner's husband to attend the council meeting to be held on 16.05.2012....
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Lakshmi Matriculation School
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-2012
(Order of the Court was made by R.BANUMATHI, J.) 1. Apprehending that the order dated 03.05.2012 is likely to be misinterpreted and there is possibility that the schools other than the writ petitioner schools are likely to misinterpret the order to collect 15% hike in fees, Government has filed this petition seeking to further clarify the directions already issued by this Court in the Order dated 03.05.2012 made in W.P.No.8489 of 2011 etc., batch. 2. We have heard Mr.S.Venkatesh, learned Government Pleader and Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader. There is no representation for the writ petitioner schools. 3. Considering the representations and urgency, we have taken up the matter. 4. In our Order dated 3.5.2012, in paragraph Nos.157 and 158, we made it clear that as per the interim arrangement only the writ petitioner schools covered under the order dated 03.05.2012 can collect 15% over ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ge India Ind L Pvt. Ltd Vs. Cce, Pondicherry
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-08-2012
Per Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri C.R. Raghavendra, Ld. Advocate and Ld. AR, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order has remanded all the matters to the original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand. However, while remanding he has held that penalty is imposable upon the appellants and accordingly in the impugned orders as regards penalties were upheld. We note that no duty re-quantification stands made by the lower authorities, requiring us to make any dispensing with the predeposit of the same. As regards penalty, we find that it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) to uphold the penalty imposition of around Rs. 1.38 lakhs in all the four appeals, without there being any re-quantification of duty before him done as arrived at as an exercise of re-quantification. 2. As such, we dispense with the condition of predeposit of penalties involved in all the cases and...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Loyola Institute of Business Administration (Liba) Vs. Commission ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided on: May-07-2012
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is for change of cause title, wherein the respondent has been shown as Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai IV. Shri P. Arul, learned AR, submits that the matter being of service tax, the same is being dealt with by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai. As such, he prays for substituting the respondent’s name as Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai. We allow the miscellaneous application for change of cause title as prayed for by the Revenue. 3. Mrs. Radhika Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the impugned demand of service tax has been confirmed against the appellants treating the appellants as a Commercial Training or Coaching Centre. She states that the definition of Commercial Training or Coaching Centre as given in the Finance Act, 1994, excludes many institutes or establishment which issues any certificate or diploma o...
Tag this Judgment!V.Mangaiyarkarasi Vs. the Home Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-2012
Prayer:- The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 30.4.2012 within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.O R D E R1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 30.4.2012 within the time frame fixed by this Court.2. Even though the petitioner has submitted his representation to the third respondent on 30.4.2012, the third respondent has not taken any action to dispose of the same, which prompted the petitioner to move this Court for the above direction.3. Considering the limited scope of the prayer, the third respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.4.2012 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after issuing notice...
Tag this Judgment!R.Jayapal Vs. the Chairman.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in the Junior Engineer/ NA/Va/Kovilpatti/Ko.Kattu/A.No.354 dated 25.04.2012 and quash the same.ORDER1. The petitioner is running a Saw Mill in the name and style of Sri Jayaguru Saw Mill and Plywoods situated at No.6/2820, B, Madurai Bye-pass Road, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.2. Admittedly, the said mill was established in the year 2006, after the cut off date i.e., 29.10.2002 fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, by an order dated 29.10.2002 in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India and others in I.A.No.566 in W.P.(C).No.202 of 1995, giving certain directions to all the States and Union Territories. The following directions are relevant for the purpose of this case:No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed saw-mills, veneer, plywood industry to operate and they are directed to clo...
Tag this Judgment!N.Sundara Kumar Vs. the District Forest Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceedings vide f.z;. c.kp.bgh/j.kp.2.n kw;Wk; g.fHfk; /Bfh.fl;L/ k.M/ m.vz;.50/12 dated 26.04.2012 and quash the same and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to issue to the petitioner's saw mill based on the application dated 25.078.2011.ORDER1. The petitioner is running a Saw Mill in the name and style of New Aruna Timbers situated at Door No.7/156, Main Road, Kurumbur, Thoothukudi District.2. Admittedly, the said mill was established in the year 2006, after the cut off date i.e., 29.10.2002 fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, by an order dated 29.10.2002 in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India and others in I.A.No.566 in W.P.(C).No.202 of 1995, giving certain directions to all the States and Union Territories. The following directions are relevant for the purpose of this case:No Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Thangadurai Vs. the Chairman.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the Assistant Executive Engineer/Pa/Thiru/Ko.Saw mill/A.No.24/12 dated 20.04.2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of law.ORDER1. The petitioner is running a Saw Mill in the name and style of Veeraragavan Saw Mill situated at Rs.No.85/2B, 3 Karisalpatti Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.2.Admittedly, the said mill was established in the year 2005, after the cut off date i.e., 29.10.2002 fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, by an order dated 29.10.2002 in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India and others in I.A.No.566 in W.P.(C).No.202 of 1995, giving certain directions to all the States and Union Territories. The following directions are relevant for the purpose of this case:No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed saw-mills, veneer, plyw...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Hanifa Vs. the Assistant Engineer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-2012
PrayerWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Ka.No.Uu.Mi.Po/E.Ka./Ko /Tho.Mi/No.009/12/ dated 25.04.2012 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue licence under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules 2010 within a reasonable time.ORDER1. The petitioner is running a "Saw Mill" in the name and style of "A.M.A.National Saw Mill" situated at SF.No.280/7B, Main Road, Vadakadu, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District.2.Admittedly, the said mill was established in the year 2005, after the cut off date i.e., 29.10.2002 fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, by an order dated 29.10.2002 in T.N.Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India and others in I.A.No.566 in W.P.(C).No.202 of 1995, giving certain directions to all the States and Union Territories. The fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »