Chennai Court April 2016 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.
Flextronics Technologies (India) Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Tax Case Revision filed under Section 60 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2005 read with Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007.) V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. This Tax Case Revision is filed by the Assesee under Section 60 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. On 4.8.2014, the Tax Case Revision was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Anti-Dumping Duty on the imported components paid by the buyer (customer of the petitioner) formed part of the "sale price" of the goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner to the buyer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that tax and penalty are imposable upon the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added A...
Sankarlal and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the order made in G.O.(3D) No.51 Housing and Urban Development (UD-VI(2)) Department dated 03.11.2015 passed by the first respondent in confirming the order made in Notice No.JE90/56/2012 dated 15.11.2012 and Letter No.Dn.90/8/2012 dated 21.11.2012 issued by the third respondent and consequential notice dated 21.02.2013 affixed by the second respondent and quash the same and forbear the respondents from any manner demolishing the residential construction made in Door Nos.104 and 105, Kannadasan Street, Dr.Ambedkar Nagar, Paddikuppam, Anna Nagar Western Extension, Chennai - 40.) Common Order M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Learned counsel for the petitioners has made an endorsement in the writ petitions to the following effect: The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7965 and 7966/2016 be permitted to withdraw. 2. Recording the aforesaid fac...
Bhagavath Singh and Others Vs. The Registrar, Palayamkottai Registrati ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of Murappanadu Sub-Registrar proceedings in Thadangal Manu No.5/2016 dated 16.03.2016 and quash the same. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of Murappanadu Sub-Registrar proceedings in Thadangal Manu No.4/2016 dated 16.03.2016 and quash the same. 1. Both these writ petitions are dismissed in limine. 2. The writ petitioners who alleged that they are the owners of the properties, in the affidavit, only say that some third persons are trying to enter into the properties and hence, the Registrar should not register any document in respect of that Survey number. 3. According to them, the orders were passed suo motu on the same day. Therefore, the orders are not legal. They also contended that thei...
Mahendran Vs. Murugan and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer:This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. against the Award and Decree made in MCOP.No.310 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, dated 01.02.2012.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree made in MCOP.No.310 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, dated 01.02.2012. 2. The appellant is the claimant. The first respondent is owner and second respondent is insurer of the vehicle which involved in the accident. The appellant sustained injury in the accident and filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,800/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant / claimant is before this Court. 3. The facts of the case are as follows:- (a) On 09.09.2002, at about 8.15 am, while the appellant...
P. Muthusamy Vs. The District Collector, Namakkal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representations of the petitioner, dated 10.03.2016 and 29.03.2016, for smooth administration and performance of daily poojas/yearly festival in Sri Mariamman Temple at Thandagoundanur, Vasanthapuram Village, Namakkal District, in line with the Court orders.) 1. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representations of the petitioner, dated 10.03.2016 and 29.03.2016, for smooth administration and performance of daily poojas/yearly festival in Sri Mariamman Temple at Thandagoundanur, Vasanthapuram Village, Namakkal District, in line with the Court orders. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this Writ Petition, are as follows:- (i) It is the case of the petitioner that nearly 200 years ago, his ances...
The Hazarat Thable Aalam Badusha Natharvali, Dargah and Others Vs. F. ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order, dated 09.10.2015 made in W.O.P.Nos.2 and 4 /2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sub Court, (Wake Tribunal) Tiruchirapalli and allow the above revision petition.) Common Order 1. Both the CRPs are filed challenging the common order, dated 09.10.2015 passed by Wakf Tribunal, Trichirappalli in W.O.P.Nos.2 and 4 of 2012. The issue involved in both the CRPs are interlinked and filed against the common order and hence, both CRPs are disposed of by common order. 2. Facts of the case:- The respondents 1 and 2 are Pangalies of first petitioner Dargah viz., sharers of residue income of Dargah. The Dargah is administred by Trustees as per the Scheme decree, dated 29.01.1930 made in O.S.No.91 of 1925 by the learned Sub Judge, Trichirapalli. As per the Scheme Decree, the Dargah is administred by five Trustees. One is heriditary Trustee selected for life. One is Pangali Trustee ...
A. Alagu Vs. The District Revenue Officer, Madurai and Others
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in R.Dis.No.G2/33584/2014 dated 10.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the petitioner's separate patta No.1979 in survey No.210/10B, Pattur Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District and to pass order as this Court may deem fit and proper.) 1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in R.Dis.No.G2/33584/2014 dated 10.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the petitioner's separate patta No.1979 in survey No.210/10B, Pattur Village, Melur Taluk, Madurai District. 2. Even in the impug...
M/s. Kalai Selvi Agencies, Rep. by its Proprietor and Another Vs. Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.196 of 2016 dated 19/2/2016 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore and to direct the Court below to return the property of his original R.C.Book in Crime No.1759 of 2013 on the file of the respondent.) 1. The Petitioner/Defacto Complainant has projected the present Criminal Revision Petition before this Court, as an aggrieved person, as against the order dated 19/2/2016, in Crl.M.P.No.296 of 2016, passed by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. 2. The learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, while passing the impugned order, in Crl.M.P.No.296 of 2016, dated 19/2/2016, (filed by the Petitioner/Defacto Complainant) had inter alia, observed the following:- ... In the petition filed by the petitioner, it is stated that on 22/11/2013, the petitioner parked his vehicle in front of his shop and went to his house and on 23/11/2013 he came ...
V. Govindarajan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.28796/S1/2015 dated 21.07.2015 and quash the same and thereby direct the first respondent to renew the Document Writer's License to the petitioner in License No.A157/95/NMK so as to enable the petitioner to practice the profession of preparing the document.) 1. The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition challenging the order dated 21.07.2015, whereby the first respondent refused to renew the document writer licence issued to the petitioner, which deprived him to practice such profession of document writer. 2. The petitioner is a document writer by profession and he acquired such skill of writing documents by experience. The petitioner obtained a licence issued by the first respondent in the year 1977. Thereafter, The Tamil Nadu Document Writers Licence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as The Rul...
V. Karuppiah (died) Vs. B. Muthulakshmi and Another
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Apr-18-2016
(Prayer: These Petitions filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Addl.District Judge/CJM), Sivagangai, dated 15.10.1998 and made in MACOP No.87/1997, 86 of 1997 and 88 of 1997.) 1. The issue involved in all the CMAs is one and the same and hence the CMAs were heard together and a common judgment is passed. 2. Being aggrieved over the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge/CJM), Sivagangai, made in MACOP No.87/1997, 86 of 1997 and 88 of 1997, dated 15.10.1998, the claimants have filed this appeal. 3. Facts of the case:- The appellants are claimants in MCOP.Nos.86,87 and 88 of 1997 filed claim petition claiming compensation for the injury sustained by them in the accident occurred on 09.09.1996. According to the claimants, they were loadmen engaged by one Ramachandran, who contested in the election, to load and un-load food items and distribute the same to the p...