Chennai Court August 2012 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.
M/S. Empee Distilleries Limited Vs. the Assistant Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
(Prayer in T.C.(A) No.164/2012: Tax Case Appeal against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.1876/MDS/2010 for the assessment year 2005-06. Prayer in T.C.(A) No.165/2012: Tax Case Appeal against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.61/MDS/2011 for the assessment year 2005-06.) Common Order ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. These tax case appeals have been filed against the common order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.No.1876/MDS/2010 and I.T.A.No.61/MDS/2011 respectively for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above tax case appeals are as follows: The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 admitting a total income of Rs.57,33,742/-. Aft...
Nanthini Vs. Selvaraj and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
(Prayer: This appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.NO.II, Coimbatore, in O.S.No.501 of 2006.) 1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiff in the suit, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.NO.II, Coimbatore, in O.S.No.501 of 2006. 2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal could be portrayed thus: (i) The appellant herein/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.501 of 2006 for partition of the immovable properties described in the schedule of the plaint, claiming 1/4th share in her favour on the main ground that those properties happened to be the ancestral ones, which her father-Selvaraj/D1 got them in ...
Anbu Murugan Starch and Sago Factory, Rep. by Its Proprietor, S. Varad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
(Prayer: Prayer in W.P.No.20286 of 2012 :Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the Respondent herein in his TNGST No.3101125/2001-02 dated 29.06.2012 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.20287 of 2012 :Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the Respondent herein in his TNGST No.3101125/2002-03 dated 30.06.2012 and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.20288 of 2012 :Petition filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the Respondent herein in his TNGST No.3101125/2003-04 dated 29.06.2012 and quash the same. COMMON ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes), appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. At this stage of the hearing of these Writ Petitions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the impugned assessment orders had been passed, by the respondent, witho...
Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Its Secretary to the Government, Home ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 1.4.2010 made in O.A.No.523/2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai/the third respondent herein and quash the same.) ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. The first respondent is a 1974 batch IPS officer, who retired as Additional Director General of Police, and questioning his non-promotion to the post of Director General of Police, he initiated the present proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') and since Tribunal has allowed the plea of the applicant/first respondent herein, the State Government/Administration has come forward to file this writ petition. 2. From the materials placed on record, it is seen that as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India in letter No.45020/11/97-IPS-II, dated 15.1.1999, officers who have put in 30 yeas of...
G. Venketesh Vs. the Commissioner Coimbatore City Municipal Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
(Prayer:Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application dated 5.6.2012 and to make a new sub division and asses the property tax in assessment No.113436 to the petitioner premises Door No.1 Subramaniapuram Street R.S.Puram Coimbatore-2 in the petitioner name.) 1. Mr.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice 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 first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 05.06.2012, on merits, within a specified period. 3. The learned 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 first respondent is directed to dispose of the representation, dated 05.06.2012, on merits and in...
M. Saravanan Vs. the Principal Secretary/ Special Commissioner of Inte ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein by his Proc.No.4625/EI-2/2012 dated 26/7/2012 and quash the same as illegal.) ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of transfer dated 26/7/2012. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, transfer order is not challenged on the ground of mala fide or violation of any statutory provision of law. 3. The grounds of challenge are (i). his daughter is studying in X Standard (ii). That there some family difficulties (iii). mid-term transfer is not permissible. 4. In support of the prayer in the writ, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance from the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, MADRAS and OTHERS Vs. O. KARUPPA THEV...
Customs Authorised Signatories (Regulation-9) Association Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari to quash public notice No.152/2011 dated 3.11.2011 in F.No.C9/2/2010 - CHA issued by the third respondent.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned had placed before this Court the decision of the Supreme Court, in SUNIL KOHLI and ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA and ORS (2012-TIOL-45-SC-CUS). The relevant portion of the said decision reads as follows: An analysis of above reproduced clauses makes it clear that the procedure prescribed in the 1984 Regulations and the 2004 Regulations for grant of licence to act as Custom House Agent is substantially similar. In terms of Clause 4 of the 1984 as also the 2004 Regulations, the Commissioner is empowered to invite applications in the month of J...
V. Devaki and Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Principal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer IN W.P.NO.433/2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 3rd respondent made in Letter No.Ni a.1/2625/2011-CR(1) dated 31.10.2011, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend pension and pensionary benefits, taking into account the 50% of the Casual Labourer services followed by regular services till the date of retirement and extend all monetary benefits and pension arising thereto. Prayer IN W.P.NO.4041/2012: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefits, by taking into account the 50% of the Casual Labourer services rendered between 26.04.1985 and 01.07.1997 and the entire services after being brought into regular establishmen...
V. Manjunath Vs. the State Transport Authority Chepauk, Chennai and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct 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-02-D-5002 in Tamil Nadu Roads.) ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader 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 this 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 day...
M/S. Kalpana Furniture Products (P) Ltd. Vs. the Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned Revision Order in TIN 33451422349/ 2009-2010 dated 13.6.2012 on the files of the respondent herein quash the same.) 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent had passed the impugned revision order, dated 13.6.2012, in respect of the assessment year 2009-2010, without passing an order, under Section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Therefore, the impugned revision order, dated 13.6.2012, passed by the respondent may be set aside. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent had not refuted the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Hence, the impugned revision order, dated 13.6.2012, passed by the respondent, is set aside. 4...