Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)5MLJ1174
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. In all these cases the common issue involved relates to the challenge of G.O.Ms. No. 139, Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated 03.11.2006 and the consequential acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999) and consequently to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the land acquisition pursuant to the G.O. in respect of the respective lands of the petitioners. In some of the cases declaration under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 10/1999 has been passed and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. 2. In all these cases, the respective petitioners are owning approved housing plots, running shops, running small industries etc, in respect of various portions of the land situated in Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chingleput District. As it is stated in some of the cases, enquiry notice issued under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)18VST562(Mad)
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. The petitioner-bank has filed this writ petition to issue certiorarified mandamus to quash Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 1 dated January 5, 2007 (Vellore District) and consequential order bearing No. NK A3/2310/2002 dated March 16, 2007 and quash the same in so far as it relates to the property situate at Plot No. 97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, SIPCOT, Ranipet and to direct the first respondent to stop further proceedings for recovery of any arrears of sales tax payable by Tajura Leathers-second respondent from out of the sale proceeds which have been appropriated by the petitioner-bank.2. Facts in a nutshell are as follows:(i) Second respondent, a partnership concern, has availed various credit facilities from the petitioner-bank. As a security for the due repayment of the loan, the second respondent offered its immovable properties- [1] (i) Plot No. 97, SIDCO Industrial Estate, (ii) Muku-ntharayapuram-2548 sq. ft. S. No. 476/5B and [2] S. Nos. 114/4 and 114/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)221CTR(Mad)371
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The writ petition is filed questioning the correctness of the assessment order dated 31.03.2006 for the assessment year 2003-04 under the Income Tax Act, 1961. ('the Act for short). The petitioner, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of exploration, exploitation, manufacture, process and production of polished and dressed granite in assorted dimensions and a 100% Export Oriented Unit by virtue of approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce under Section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951. While filing its return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 on 26.02.2004 the petitioner claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act for the period from 01.04.2002 to 22.09.2002 and deduction under Section 10B of the Act for the period from 23.09.2002 to 31.03.2003. The case had been taken up for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued and the petitioner was heard through the representative. Subseque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009CriLJ3114; (2009)222CTR(Mad)470; [2009]309ITR277(Mad); [2009]179TAXMAN212(Mad)
ORDERK. Mohan Ram, J.1. Since common questions arise for consideration in the above Criminal Original Petition and in the above Criminal Revision Case both the cases are disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the above cases are set-out below:(i) The petitioner is the accused in E.O.C.C. No. 263 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offence-I), Egmore, Chennai - 8. The respondent filed a complaint for the alleged offence under Section 35(B) of The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of non-filing of the Wealth Tax Return for the assessment year 1993-1994. The gist of the allegations are as under:(ii) The petitioner is the General Secretary of the political party-All India Anna Dravidar Munnetra Kazhagam (A.I.A.D.M.K.). Earlier she was a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). She was also the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during the period 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)5MLJ449
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.8.2007 of the first respondent/Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner in Appeal No. 55 of 2005 and confirming the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.2005. 2. Under the order of the second respondent dated 28.6.2005, the second respondent, who has earlier given consent order to the petitioner/Unit under Section 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for brevity, 'the Act'), having found, on inspection of the unit of the petitioner on 31.3.2005, that the unit has not taken action for segregation of high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) dyebath effluent, has directed the unit to segregate the high TDS effluent and to provide Mechanical Evaporator within six months, stating that the consent is valid for the period ending 31.12.2005.3. It was against the said order, the petitioner/Unit has filed an appeal bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(Mad)625
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the assessment order of the respondent dated 31.12.2008 by which the respondent, having referred the matter to the Valuation Cell on 17.12.2008 as per Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'), completed the assessment by invoking Section 50C of the Act by taking the value of land as determined for stamp duty purpose as the sale value, as no valuation report was received from the Valuation Cell till the said date.2.1. The petitioner was the owner of a plot of land comprised in R.S. No. 3123/2, Block No. 51, Old No. 258 (New No. 849), Poonamallee High Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai. She leased out the said portion of land to the Indian Oil Corporation for more than 40 years in which the Corporation was operating a petrol bunk. The petitioner, having decided to sell the property to the Indian Oil Corporation, after negotiation, fixed the sale consideration at Rs. 99 Lakhs. Pursuant to the agreement, a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2010)229CTR(Mad)57
ORDERV. Ramasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 and an order overruling the objections filed by the petitioner to the said notice.2.I have heard Mr. S. Sridhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Subramaniam, learned standing counsel for the Department.3. The petitioner is a company, whose main objects, as per the articles and memorandum of association, include the manufacturing and marketing of paper and the business of financing. The company was incorporated in 1974. For the asst. yr. 2004-05 relating to the previous year ending 31st March, 2004, the petitioner filed a return of income on 1st Nov., 2004 disclosing a total income of Rs. 3,02,626. This income was arrived at by the petitioner by showing an income of Rs. 12,80,258 as interest earned in the activity of money-lending, under the head 'Business' and after claiming admissible expenses and set off as against brought fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question. 2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question. 2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
"What's in a name That which we call a rose, By any other name would smell as sweet"1. would have been acceptable to Shakespeare, but certainly not to WIPO. Today everything is in a name, if the name had acquired significance as a trademark. William Murray, First Earl of Mansfield observed in Morgan vs. Jones, that "most of the disputes in the world arise from words". BACKGROUND OF THE LITIGATION ON HAND2. The case of the plaintiff, as reflected in the plaint, is that it is a company rendering online matrimonial services, using internet as a vehicle/platform. The plaintiff has several matrimonial web portals including 15 regional portals, catering to the needs of millions of Indians living in India and outside. Mr.Janakiraman Murugavel, promotor/ founder Director of the plaintiff adopted a host of trademarks and obtained registration thereof. The plaintiff-company also adopted a few trademarks and obtained registration thereof in its own name. By virtue of a Deed of Assignment dated 16...
Tag this Judgment!