Chennai Court September 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.
M/s. Coromandel Oils Pvt.Ltd., Chennai Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer - ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the first respondent in T.R.No.69-C/2012-13/AAACC8855E, dated 08.01.2013, relating to the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, and to quash the order of attachment of the immovable property, and to direct the first respondent to lift the order of the attachment of the immovable property,and to return the original document given as a surety to the second respondent by letter, 04.09.2012.) 1. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company, and they filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order of attachment of the immovable property, passed by the first respondent/Tax Recovery Officer, under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') dated 08.01.2013, and to quash the same, and consequently, to direct the first respondent to lift the order of attachment and to return the original documents, g...
S. Palanisamy and Others Vs. The Sub Registrar of Registration, Karur ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in his letter dated 23.04.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to register the sale deeds and conveyances in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners in Survey No.200/2, 200/1C, 200/1B, Thoranakkalpatti Village, Karur Taluk, without reference to any other authority.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed to calling for the records of the first respondent in his letter dated 23.04.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to register the sale deeds and conveyances in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioner in Survey No.200/2, 200/1C, 200/1B, Thoranakkalpatti Village, Karur Taluk, without reference to any other authority. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Power Agent, namely, S.Subramani and the said Power was registered on...
Syed Althaf Ali and Others Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent to release the goods detained in O.S.No.1181 of 2014-Air dated 15.04.2015 by implementing and give effect to the Order-in-Appeal viz., C.Cus-I No.354 of 2015 Air in C4-I/231/O/2015 Air dated 30.06.2015 within a reasonable time frame.) 1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the goods detained in O.S.No.1181 of 2014-Air dated 15.04.2015 by implementing and give effect to the Order-in-Appeal viz., C.Cus-I No.354 of 2015 Air in C4-I/231/O/2015 Air dated 30.06.2015 within a reasonable time frame. 2. The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner came from Kuwait on 19.09.2014 and landed at Chennai International Airport, he was intercepted by the Customs at the arrival hall and inventorised the goods and detained the goods viz., 599 grms of Gold valued Rs.16,17,300/- for Adjudication in O.S.No.1181 of 2014-Ai...
S. Kannan Vs. The Superintendent, CBI Bank Security and Fraud Cell, Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the respondents to take action on the complaint of the petitioner dated 17.02.2016 and register a case and investigate the same in accordance with law.) 1. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made the following endorsement in Crl.O.P.No.5164 of 2016: In view of the stand taken by the respondent in their counter that at paragraph 3, this matter may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate authority as per Circular dated 01.07.2014. 2. Recording the aforesaid fact and the endorsement so made, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Competent/Appropriate Authority seeking redressal of his grievance in the manner known to Law and in accordance with Law....
Kulai Senthil @ Senthil Kumar Vs. State by Inspector of Police and Ano ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Criminal Revision case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order, Crime and Traffic, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District in C.No. 09/DC/L and O/Cr and Tr/TPC/16 dated 21.04.2016 in directing the petitioner herein to undergo simple imprisonment in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai till 03.02.2017 for violation of Bond for Good conduct as per Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.) 1. The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order, Crime and Traffic, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District in C.No. 09/DC/L and O/Cr and Tr/TPC/16 dated 21.04.2016 directing the petitioner herein to undergo simple imprisonment in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai till 03.02.2017 for violation of the bond for good conduct as per Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainl...
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Joint Commissioner [CT], Chennai [ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J. 1. Tax Case [Revision Petition] No.24 of 2016 is preferred under Section 60 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 by the State, calling in question the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal [Main Bench] Chennai in T.A.No.43/2013. 2. The respondent-assessee is carrying on real estate development and sale of residential houses. The assessee has reported a total turnover of Rs.1,72,96,279/- under the Value Added Tax Act for the year 2011-12. The place of business of the assessee has been inspected by the Enforcement Wing of the Department between 09.03.2010 to 18.04.2012 and it was found out that the respondent-assessee dealer has purchased earth from one Sri.A.Ashok Kumar of Poonamallee for a value of little more than Rs.1.18Crores for the purpose of supply, filling, spreading, levelling and compacting the project site. The Assessing Officer has levied tax at the rate of 4% on the estimated turnover of Rs.1,30,81,453/- as the de...
Rafeeq Ahmed Mustafa Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Airpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent to release the goods detained in O.S.No.1241 of 2014 Air by implementing and give effect to the Order-in-Appeal viz., C.Cus- I No.365 of 2015 in C4-I/311/O/2015 Air dated 30.06.2015 within a reasonable time frame.) 1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the goods detained in O.S.No.1241 of 2014 Air by implementing and give effect to the Order-in- Appeal viz., C.Cus-I No.365 of 2015 in C4-I/311/O/2015 Air dated 30.06.2015 within a reasonable time frame. 2. The case of the petitioner is that when the petitioner came from Singapore on 20.09.2014 and landed at Chennai International Airport, he was intercepted by the Customs at the arrival hall and inventorised the goods and detained the goods viz., 4 No's gold bars totally weighting 400 grams of gold valued Rs.9,88,000/- for Adjudication in O.S.No.1241 of 2014- Air...
C. Sarasu The Joint Registrar / Liquidator, No.28, Madurai Urban, Co-o ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for and quash the notice dated 14-06-2010 issued by the Respondent to the petitioner and consequently direct the Respondent to receive the amount at the rate of 6% for the agreed Borrowed Loan amount by the petitioner as mentioned in the paper publication dated 23-05-2010.) M. Sathyanarayanan, J.] 1. When the matter was listed for hearing on 14.09.2016, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was absent and therefore, this Writ Petition was directed to be listed today under the caption 'for dismissal'. Once again, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the respondent is ready with the matter. 2. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed 'for default'. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed....
M/s. Ceedeeyes Standard Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The District Collecter of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the notice in Form A and dated 22.07.2004 in ref. No.MG/LA1/2002 issued on behalf of the 1st respondent purporting to be under Section 15[2] of Tamil Nadu High Ways Act 2001 and to quash the said notice. 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash a notice issued by the 1st respondent in Form-A dated 22.07.2004 under Section 15[2] of the Tamil Nadu High Ways Act, 2001. 2. This Writ Petition was initially tagged along with W.P.No.39261 of 2003 and was disposed of by an order dated 21.02.2013, holding that the impugned notice is vitiated for the reason that the respondents have not followed the pre-requisites as mentioned in Section 8 of of the Tamil Nadu High Ways Act, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] and that, no Award has been passed to pay compensation to the petitioner. Keeping in mind the importance of the a...
V.K. Usha @ Saraswathi Vs. Diety Dhandayuthapani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-2016
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Decree and Judgment passed dated 22.08.2013 in A.S.No.4 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Udumalpet confirm the Decree and Judgement passed in O.S.No.96 of 2004 dated 23.12.2011.) 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 6 are having kudivaram in existence as an immemorial grant in permanent posterity under inheritance and for recovery of possession. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:- a) The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 are the children of one K.K.Kulandaivel. One Chinnappa Naicker granted the suit inam lands to the fore-father of K.K.Kulandaivel, namely Kulandai Pandaram as a personal grant, and the said person enjoyed the suit properties as inam holder. The said personal grant was burdened with services to be rendered to the 1st defendant namely Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani. After the lifetime of ...