Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC28
ORDER1. In all these cases, the petitioners are seeking to issue a writ of declaration, declaring that the order of the first respondent/Governor, in rejecting the mercy petitions dated 17.10.1999 submitted by the petitioners as communicated in the communication dated 27.10.1999, issued by the forth respondent as ultra vires, the Constitution of India illegal and inoperative.2. The petitioners were charge-sheeted and tried in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case. The designated Court convicted them for offences under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under TADA and other offences. The appeals preferred by the petitioners were dismissed by the Apex Court. Even the Review Applications ended in dismissal, as a result of which the date was fixed by the jail authorities for hanging the petitioners.3. Thereafter, according to the petitioners, they have submitted the petitions dated 17.10.1999, claiming the mercy of the Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu with en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2001)1MLJ816
ORDERN.K. Jain, C.J.1. These writ petitions are filed against the common order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. Nos. 7893 of 1999 and 17 of 2000, whereby the Tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to select and appoint the applicants before the Tribunal.2. Brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the appeals, leading to filing of the above O.As are: a notification was published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission), inviting applications for the recruitment to the post of Group I Services for 84 vacancies for five different categories in January, 1998 in two successive stages, preliminary examination and the main examination, consisting of qualifying examination and oral test and final selection on the basis of marks obtained at the main written examination and oral test subject to the rule of reservation. A preliminary examination was conducted on 7.6.1998. 840 candidates were provisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2002)175CTR(Mad)449; 2002(139)ELT245(Mad); [2002]258ITR209(Mad); 2006[2]STR393; [2007]6STT112
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment will govern the above writ petitions, which are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Out of the above writ petitions, while W.P. No. 8539 of 2000 is filed by the Indian Institute of Architects Association, Tamil Nadu Chapter on behalf of the Architects in general, who are registered under it as the practicing Architects, rest of the writ petitions pertain to the Chartered Accountants and have been filed by the various representative bodies of which the practising Chartered Accountants are the members since the question involved in identical in all these petitions and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Shortly stated, the Architects and Chartered Accountants are challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Finance Act by which the services offered by the Architects and Chartered Accountants have been brought under the tax-net, which is to be charged at five per cent of the value of the taxable servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2003]129STC509(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. In all the cases, the petitioners challenge the imposition of interest for the belated payment of tax on the turnover of works contract on the ground that even prior to passing of a final assessment order, the petitioners filed revised returns and paid the tax due thereon and inasmuch as the tax amounts were paid prior to the date of passing of final assessment order, the petitioners are not liable to pay interest on the tax payable, as demanded by the assessing officer.2. The precise facts of the case as culled out from the pleadings are as follows:In the first three writ petitions, the assessees is one and the same and the assessment years are 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. In respect of the assessment year 1988-89, which is the subject matter of W.P. No. 18010 of 2000, the facts are as follows:-3. The petitioner is a Rule 18 assessee opted for self-assessment in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Tamilnadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Rule 18...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2004)1MLJ200
1. By consent of all the parties and in view of urgency in deciding the issue one way or other writ petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal. Since all the three writ petitions relate to property bearing Nos. 11 and 12, Bishop Wallers Avenue (South), Mylapore, Chennai-4, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the order No. 1704 dated 30-5-2003 issued by the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai under Section 258 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act IV of 1919, calling upon the petitioner to fence off, take down, except stilt plus 4 floors, secure or repair such building so as to prevent any danger therefrom, the owner of the property, namely, A. Sridevi through her Power of Atttorney Dileep Bhandari has filed Writ Petition No. 15952/2003 to quash the same on various grounds.2. The Power of Attorney Dileep Bhandari, aggrieved by the order No. ESI/10791/2002 dated 30-5-2003, passed by the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Developmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2005(2)CTC609; 2006(1)CTLJ495(Mad); (2005)2MLJ653
Markandey Katju, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2005 passed in W.P. No. 4120 of 2005. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.3. W.A. No. 636 of 2005 has been filed by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as 'BCCI') having its registered office at M.A. Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai. W.A. No. 676 of 2005 has been filed against the same order of the learned single Judge by Zee Telefilms Limited (hereinafter referred to as Zee) which was the petitioner in W.P. No. 4120 of 2005. W.A. No. 638 of 2005 has been filed by Mr. Jagmohan Dalmiya, the Chairman of the BCCI.4. W.P. No. 4120 of 2005, in which the impugned order was delivered, was filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent - BCCI in its communication dated 21.09.200 4 cancelling the tender process dated 07.08.2004, to quash the same and consequently direct the first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2006]287ITR561(Mad)
R. Banumathi, J.C.S. No. 454 of 2005:1. Suit filed by the applicant/plaintiff-G. V. Films Ltd. (GVFL) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-auction purchasers and their men from interfering with the applicant's/plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, except by due process of law.Application No. 543 of 2005:2. Application filed by GVFL for temporary injunction on the above lines.3. W. P. No. 17576 of 2005 was filed by the applicant/plaintiff (GVFL) challenging the order of the Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) under Rule 39 of the Income-tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962 ('ITCP Rules'), and to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the Income-tax Department from interfering with the possession of GVFL Ltd.4. For convenience, the parties are referred to as in their rank in C. S. No. 454 of 2005.5. Earlier, by order dated August 22, 2005, G.V. Films Ltd. v. S. Priya-darshan [2006] 281 ITR 114, F. M. Ibrahim Kalifulla J. has passed the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2006)3MLJ117
D. Murugesan, J.1. As the issues involved in both the writ petitions arise under the same tender notification, they are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner-M/s Karnataka Commercial & Industrial Corporation Private Limited is engaged in the business of offering specialized services in the domestic airports. According to the petitioner, for the past 13 years, it has been successfully implementing and managing the issuance of Airport Entry Tickets in the Airports at Delhi, Hyderabad, Chennai, Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Goa. On 1.12.2003 the petitioner was awarded the licence for management of airport entry ticket contract at Chennai Airport for a period of two years and that the petitioner had successfully implemented the contract without any blemish. On 28.11.2005, the Airport Director, Airport Authority of India, Chennai Airport, Chennai, the second respondent issued a notice inviting tender for the grant of licence for the management of airport entry ticket (hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2006)3MLJ391
V. Dhanapalan, J.1. These two Writ Appeals are directed against the order dated 14.11.20 00 of the learned Single Judge made in W.P. No. 10271 of 1999 challenging the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 154, Higher Education (J-1) Department dated 15.04.1999 and W.P. No. 4156 of 2000 challenging the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 12, Higher Education Department dated 18.01.2000. Both these Government Orders were issued in respect of regulation of tuition fees in unaided self-financing polytechnics and revision of fees for diploma course in unaided Hotel Management and Catering Technology institutions.2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, we shall refer the parties as per their rank before the learned single Judge.3. The learned single Judge, after finding that the fixation of the fees cannot be on the basis of the admission made for each institution, held that it can be fixed only on the basis of sanctioned strength of the institutions. It was further held that merely becaus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Reported in : (2007)103ITD457(Chennai)
1. This appeal by the Revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee are emanating out of the order of the CIT(A)-III, Chennai, dt. 4th Oct., 2002. The assessment was framed by the AO under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1997-98.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel of the assessee made a mention during the course of hearing that the cross-objection of the assessee be taken first for hearing as the jurisdictional issues are raised by the assessee by way of cross-objections. The learned Departmental Representative agreed to this.3. The first issue in the cross-objection is regarding reopening of the assessment under Section 147 r/w Section 148 of the Act. The briefly stated facts are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 26th Nov., 1997, which was revised on 18th March, 1998. The revised return was taken up for scrutiny by the AO by issuing notice under Section 143(2) and completed the assessment ...
Tag this Judgment!