Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1951Mad70; (1951)IMLJ115
Govinda Menon, J. 1. At the very outset of his arguments the learned Advocate-General raised the objection that this Court has no power to issue a writ of certiorari claimed by the petitioners, and he rested his argument on an interpretation of Articles 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Ryots of Garbandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimidi which lays down that the High Court at Madras has no power to issue a writ of certiorari on an officer or official body beyond the limits of the Presidency town of Madras except in a limited manner as regards British subjects and that the Madras Supreme Court Charter (1800), Clause 8 did not confer such a power has been relied upon by the learned Advocate General. This decision must be deemed to have overruled the earlier decisions of this Court such as In re Nataraja Iyer, 36 Mad. 72 : (16 I. 0. 755) and the cases which followed the same, to the effect that the High Court has jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 23-04-2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.Nos.33607 to 33613 of 2012, W.P.Nos. 3835, 3980, 4030, 6095, 6282 and 6882 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 (8 Nos.) 2 (9 Nos.) and 3 (2 Nos.) W.P.No.33607 of 2012: -------------------- Rosary Matriculation Higher Secondary School Represented by its Correspondent Rev. Sr.Lily D'Souza 11, Papanasam Sivan Road Santhome, Chennai 4. .. Petitioner vs.1. The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary Department of School Education Fort St. George Chennai 9.2. The Private Schools Fee Determining Committee Rep. By its Special Officer PTA Building DPI Campus College Road Chennai 6. .. Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition No. 33607 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Committee, pertaining to the order of fixation dated 26.9.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus quashing the proceedings of the first respondent in Rc.A2.9052/02 and 11286 to 11288/04 (1992-93), (1993-94) (1994-95) and (1996-97) respectively dated 6.7.2004, while directing the first respondent not to impose purchase tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 as directed by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Acts Cell.I/Dis.105980/88 dated 9.11.1989 and in D.Dis.Acts.Cell.II/52900/2000 dated 27.12.2000 until withdrawn in Acts Cell.II/6914/2002 dated 28.1.2002.) Common Order 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioner is a Public limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and they are registered as a dealer on the file of the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. J. Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel accepts notice for the respondents. Heard both. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a retired employee of the ICICI Bank and is presently aged 68 years. He is constrained to approach this Court in terms of the proceedings dated 4.8.2016 issued by the third respondent. 3. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner, upon retirement, filed his return of income for the relevant year and the assessment was finalized. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of S. Palaniappan v. I.T.O. [Civil Appeal No. 4411 of 2010 dated 28.9.2015] held that a person, who has opted for voluntary retirement under the Early Retirement Option Scheme shall be entitled to exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Following the said decision, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular dated 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1964)1MLJ25
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This Reference has become necessary on account of certain doubts felt in regard to the correctness of the decision of a Bench of three Judges of this Court--Rajamannar, C.J., Ramachandra Iyer (one of us) and Ganapatia Pillai, JJ., in S.C.P. No. 117 of 1959. It was held in that case that an order under Article 226 of the Constitution granting a writ of certiorari, the consequence of which was to revive and make available for fresh adjudication, the proceedings before the inferior Tribunal, was in the nature of a remand order which would not constitute a judgment or final order coming within Article 133 of the Constitution. In a still earlier case, namely, C. Dhanalakshmi v. I.T. Officer : (1957)2MLJ567 , it was even held that an order rejecting a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari would not amount to a judgment or final order, if the result of the judgment of the High Court in the writ proceedings did not have the effect of finally disposing of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1971)2MLJ502
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. These writ appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by the petitioners therein, questioning the legality of the Cement Control (Amendment) Order of 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Order) which came into force on the 16th of April, 1969, introducing certain changes in the Cement Control Order of 1967, hereinafter referred to as the Order.2. The writ petitioners asked for the issue of a writ of mandamus and other appropriate directions. Ismail, J., accepted the contentions of the petitioners on all the main points and allowed the writ petitions issuing certain directions. Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2243 of 1969; Madras Cement Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P.No. 2244 of 1969 and the India Cements Ltd. is the petitioner in W.P. No. 2245 of 1969.3. The Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and Company Affairs, New Delhi, and (2) The Cement Controller, New Delhi, the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]90ITR116(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. In these two writ petitions the constitutional validity of Section 140A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is challenged. The petitioners are different but identical contentions have been raised. In the first case for the assessment year 1968-69 the petitioner filed on April 18, 1969, a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 51,350. The tax payable thereon under Section 140A(1) was Rs. 15,506. Since the petitioner did not pay the tax within thirty days of furnishing the return as required under Section 140A(1), a notice under Section 140A(3) was issued to him to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed. The petitioner filed a written reply on October 28, 1969, stating that his funds were locked up in the business and that, therefore, the tax could not be paid in accordance with that section. But the Income-tax Officer rejected his explanation on the ground that the petitioner was showing large cash balance in his wealth-tax ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in G.O.No.S.R.I/815-6/2011 dated 06.02.2012 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the body of the person of the detenu namely Mohamed Kassime aged about 33 years son of Abdoul Lattif before this Court, now detained under section 3[1] of the COFEPOSA Act in the Central Prison, Cuddalore and set him at liberty.O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA,J. & P.DEVADASS, J.)1. The petitioner who is the brother-in-law of the detenu, viz., Mohamed Kassime, S/o.Abdoul Lattif, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the first respondent dated 06.02.2012 slapped on the detenu under the provision of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.2. Mr.Palanikumar, learned counsel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :05. 04.2013 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU Writ Appeal Nos.849 to 854 of 2010 and 2066 of 2010 and Writ Petition Nos.25736 to 25741 of 2010 and W.P.Nos.17731, 20728 of 2012 and W.P.(MD)No.8911 of 2012 W.A.No.849 of 2010: ------------------ 1. R.Thirunavukkarasu 2. M.Sundarajan 3. C.P.Chitrarasu .. Appellants Vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2. The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004.3. K.Palanisamy, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime, Madurai City.4. R.Balan, Superintendent of Police, Video Piracy Cell, CID, Chennai.5. A.V.Rajaraman, Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Erode.6. I.Balashanmugam, Superintendent of Police, V & AC, Southern Range, Madurai.7. T.Elango, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Crime & Traffic, Salem City.8. M.Pandiyan, Superintendent of Police, Thiruvanna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:31. 10.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P(MD)No.6216 of 2011 W.P(MD)Nos.6216 and 6217 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.2 and 2 of 2011 W.P(MD)No.6216 of 2011: Virudhunagar District Bus Owners Association, represented by its Secretary, No.1/291, Pravin Sarvin Complex, Collectorate Post, Virudhunagar ?. 626 002. : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its, Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MCII) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ?. 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai ?. 625 002. : Respondents (R.1 amended as per the order of this Court dated 09.06.2014 made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 in W.P(MD)No.6216 of 2014.) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent made under G.O.Ms.No.29, Municipal Administrati...
Tag this Judgment!