Court : Chennai
(Prayers: W.A. Nos.1454 and 1455 of 2014 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 9220 and 9221 of 2014. W.P. Nos. 585 and 587 of 2012 have been filed praying this Court for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the first proviso to Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, insofar as and to the extent that it confers unguided power upon the Dept. of Telecommunications to claim a revenue share in respect of non-telecom activities of petitioner, as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. W.P. Nos.586 and 588 of 2012 have been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that the Department of the respondents can charge only License Fee/AGR (Adjusted Gross Revenue) from revenue earned from licensed activities. W.P. Nos.2165 to 2167 of 2013 have been filed praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order made in I.T.A.No.3094/Mds/2004, dated 21.09.2006.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Tax Case Appeal is directed against the order made in I.T.A.No.3094/Mds/2004, dated 21.09.2006, on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, for the assessment year 1999-2000. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture and export of fabrics. For the assessment year 1999-2000, the appellant has filed return of income on 24.12.1999, wherein, he had adjusted the gross total income of Rs.25,51,237/-, against deductions of Rs.26,01,894/- and Rs.12,000/-, under Sections 80HHC and 80L of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. The claim of Rs.26,01,894/-, also included deduction, under Section 80HHC of the Act, in respect of interest income of Rs.20,58,049/-, which the appellant treated, as business income. 3. The assessing officer issued notice, under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the I Additional Districit Judge, Coimbatore dated 22.07.2011 in A.S.No.40 of 2010, reversing the fair and decreetal order of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirupur dated 31.03.2010 in I.A.No.1686 of 2009 in O.S.No.291 of 2009. 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 of the first respondent pertaining to the proceedings in No.E1/10975/2010 dated 22.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to measure the property in G.S.No.805 at Varapatty Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimabtore District by a different Surveyor.) Common Judgment 1. The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.40 of 2010 on the file of I Additional District Court, Coimbatore, reversing the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.1686 of 2009...
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
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records bearing reference K.Dis.No.J2/22026/12, dated 07.01.2013 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction and further confirm the grant of patta in CA.58 of 2012, dated 13.01.2012.) 1. The petitioner/Private Limited Company challenges the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 07.01.2013, in and by which, the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in C.A.No.58/2012, dated 13.01.2012, has been cancelled and further direction was issued to restore the same to it's original entry and the Tahsildar, Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk - the second respondent herein, was directed to carry out the changes in terms of the said order. 2. The petitioner - the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, would aver that it is a well known Company and has been in the business of realtor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the Tamil Nadu Establishment of Private Law Colleges (Prohibition) Act, 2014 (Act 13 of 2014) as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India. Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the Tamil Nadu Establishment of Private Law Colleges (Prohibition) Act, 2014 (Act 13 of 2014) as illegal, unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India. Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order made in Lr.No.4331/Regr/ACAD/A3/2014, dated 28.1.2015 issued by the second respondent, to quash the same and forbear the first respondent from interfering with the petitioner's right to process its affiliation through the second respondent to commence the law course in Saraswathi ...
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
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that the appointments made by the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 31.1.2016, appointing respondents 4 to 14 as Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are illegal, ab initio void and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Constitutional provisions and, therefore, consequently to hold that respondents 4 to 14 have no authority to hold the posts of Members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and consequently to declare the post as vacant. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the appointment of respondents 3 to 13 as Members of the TNPSC made in G.O.(Ms.) (3) No.9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (M) Department, dated 31.1.2016 issued by the first respondent as illegal and against Constitutional manda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 17.04.2012 in W.P.No.23476 of 2008. Review Applications filed under Order 47 Rule (1) and (2) read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the common orders made in W.A.Nos.1103 and 1104 of 2009 dated 25.09.2008.) Common Order: S. Manikumar, J. 1. W.P.No.8801 of 2008 has been filed by Periyar District Cooperative Land Development Bank Employee's Union, represented by its General Secretary, Erode District for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash G.O. Ms. No. 186 Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 16.08.2000 and consequently, the said Union has prayed for a direction to respondents therein, to allow the salary and other allowances including terminal benefits in terms of the concluded settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. 2. W.P.No.8826 of 2008 has been filed by K.Selvaraj and two others for a similar prayer, to quash the said Government Order and the consequential o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the respondent in TIN:330203524802/2013-14 dated 17.11.2015 and quash the same as being violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act and hence invalid and illegal.) Common Order: 1. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are registered dealers on the file of the respective Assessing Officers under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [in short TNVAT Act ] and or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [in short CST Act ]. These cases were clubbed together as a common issue arises pertaining to the reversal of Input Tax Credit [in short ITC ] effected by the respective Assessing Officers of the registered dealers. Therefore, it may not be necessary to refer to the facts and circumstances of each case and suffice to take such of those facts, which are necessary to...
Tag this Judgment!