Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad896; (1931)60MLJ25
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a rule calling upon 'the Minister, Public Health, Government of Madras,' to show cause why an order made by him on the 11th of March, 1929, should not be quashed on certiorari. The ground on which the rule was obtained may be shortly stated. The Nuzvid Union Board granted permission to a certain person to establish a rice mill within its jurisdiction. The Collector suspended the resolution of the Board, as, in his opinion, the establishment of a mill in the locality in question 'was likely to be detrimental to public health'. The Local Government passed proceedings under Sections 38 and 196 of the Local Boards Act (1920), on the 9th of June, 1928, directing that the Collector's order 'shall continue in force permanently'. Subsequently this order was rescinded on the 11th of March, 1929, the result being that permission to establish the mill was accorded. This rule was issued at the instance of certain residents of the locality who complained that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Common Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records comprised in impugned order in TIN: 33440461618/2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 dated 30.10.2015, on the file of the respondent No.3, quash the same.) 1. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner have challenged the assessment orders passed by the third respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (TNVAT Act), for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, dated 30.10.2015. Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are identical, they were heard together and with the consent on either side, are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 in 2007 and engaged in the business of supplying Base Transmission Modules and its related IT Telecommunication equipment for use by various...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ44
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner Major F.K. Mistry who was an Ordinance Officer in charge of the Returned Stores Depot, Almadi, Avadi Sub-Area, along with two others was prosecuted firstly for having conspired to remove and continually misappropriate, tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and secondly in pursuance to that conspiracy for having with his two associates managed, in their capacity as officers belonging to the Ordinance Department in the Indian Army, to remove quantities of tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and in compensation for which act, the petitioner was paid Rs. 800 out of the sale proceeds of these articles on or about the 31st August, 1946. The charge-sheet was filed on the 24th July, 1947, alleging that the offences were committed on 28th August, 1946, and the petitioner received his share of the proceeds of misappropriation on the 31st August, 1946. Fourteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution and thereafter charges were framed on the 1st o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1990Mad185
ORDERRatnam, J. 1. This appeal under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) at the instance of the Assistant Collector, Tiruvallur, has been preferred against the order of the Sub-Court, Tiruvallur, in L.A.O.P. No. 25 of 1981, on a reference made to it under S. 18 of the Act.2. An extent of 1.65 acres in survey No. 2/2 and another extent of 1.27 acres in survey No. 3/1 with a well in Periakuppam, village, tiruvallur taluk, Chengalpattu District, classified in the revenue records as 'wet' were acquired under the provisions of the Act for the construction of a Bus Depot for Pallavan Transport Corporation. The notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was published on 27-7-1977. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant prayed that compensation in respect of the acquired lands should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per cent, in addition to the compensation for the well situate in one of the acquired properties. The Land Acquisition Officer,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1942Mad614; (1942)1MLJ137
Mockett, J.1. It is unnecessary to set out the complicated facts which are the basis of the suit, the subject of this civil revision petition. The following statement of the essential facts is sufficient. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 55 of 1932 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly against the defendants, who both reside in Rangoon. The prayer in the plaint is as follows:(a) For a decree directing the defendants to deliver the properties' in Schedule 0, Parts I, II and III, together with profits from date of suit;' and declaring that the plaintiff is solely and absolutely entitled to the assets described in Schedule C, Part IV.(b) In case the plaintiff is held not entitled to that relief, for a decree directing the division, of the properties in Schedules A, B and C into one fourth, three-eighths and three-eighths shares allotting Schedules A and B to the plaintiff and charity and adding so much property from Schedule 0 as may be necessary to make them a just moiety of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad543; (1954)IMLJ206
(1) This is a court fee reference by the Master. R. M. Seshadri filed C. S. No. 541 of 1949 on the Original Side of this court for a declaration that the order of the defendant (State of Madras dated 7th August 1947 terminating his service as a member of the Indian Civil Service was 'ultra vires' its powers, illegal and void, and directing it to restore him to an office appropriate to his rank and seniority in the service, and for recovery of arrears of salary of a sum of Rs. 28884-13-0 and damages of a sum of one lakh rupees for terminating his service illegally and arbitrarily. On the plaint he paid a court fee of Rs. 935.The suit was dismissed by Panchapakesa Aiyar J. on 25th March 1952. On 20th August 1952 he preferred an Original Side appeal against the decree and judgment. He valued the memorandum of appeal at a sum of Rs. 1,44,385-13-0 and paid a court fee of Rs. 935 i.e. the same amount he paid on the plaint. Rule 1 of Or. II of the High I Court Pees Rules 1933 as amended by R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1958Mad220; [1957]32ITR439(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - These four petitions are directed to challenge the validity of a notice issued to the respective petitioners under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act. This section was introduced by the Amending Act XXXIII of 1954, and one of the points raised in these petitions is as regards the constitutional validity of this amending provision.We shall state a few preliminary facts before dealing with the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Rajendra Mills Ltd., Salem, are the petitioners in W.P. No. 307 of 1955, the Meenakshi Mills Ltd., at Madurai are the petitioners in W. P. No. 308 of 1955 while W. P. No. 309 of 1955 is by the Saroja Mills Ltd., Coimbatore, and these three mills are managed by Sri Karumuttu Thiagarajan Chettiar, who has a controlling interest in each of these three companies; and Sri Thyagarajan Chettiar as an individual is the petitioner in W.P. No. 310 of 1955. For the assessment years 1940-41 to 1946-47 the several p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(3)CTC255
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. All these actions-this Batch of Writ Petitions-filed by Importers-Dealers or otherwise - of motor vehicles into local area from any 1997/3/17 place outside the State of Tamil Nadu for use or sale herein- owning motor vehicle at the time of its entry into the local area-are analogous in nature.2. The thrust and focus - either on pure questions of law constitutional or otherwise or on facts the existence of which is a matter of proof-giving risk to legal figment ~ are mostly common or similar.3. Irrespective of the nomenclature of these actions-Writs - Whether for Declaration, mandamus. Prohibition and what not - the fact remains-constitutional questions revolving on :(i) Legislative competence ;(ii) Colourable piece of Legislation;(iii) Violation of rights under Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India (for short Constitution);(iv) Absence of prior approval of the President of India under the Proviso to Article 304(b) of the Constitution.;(v) Challenge on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1980)1MLJ82
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Central Act IV of 1939, was enacted by the Central Legislature and it came into force on 16th February, 1939. The said Act was obviously covered by Entry 20 in List III, Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, namely 'Mechanically propelled vehicles'. Chapter IV of this Act made elaborate provisions for control of transport vehicles. It is pursuant to the provisions contained in the said Chapter, permits are being granted for the purpose of running different types of motor vehicles on public roads. The system of granting of permits for the purpose of running buses on the road came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in C.S.S. Motor Service and Ors. v. State of Madras and Anr. : AIR1953Mad279 . In that case, this Court has held that the right of a citizen to carry on business in motor transport on public streets is within the protection of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and as it is a right guara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1931Mad457; (1931)60MLJ435
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This matter has been posted for being spoken to. While the ruling I gave the other day applies' generally to suits removed to the High Court under Clause (13) of the Letters Patent,' it cannot govern cases transferred from the City Civil Court, as a special Act applies in that case. The question at present arises in such a case and I therefore desire to amplify my ruling so as to make it applicable also to case's of that description.2. The questions I have to decide may be thus stated:(1) When a suit is removed and tried by the High Court as a Court of Extraordinary Original Jurisdiction, are Court-fees leviable under the Court Fees Act or under the High Court Fees Rules?(2) When a suit filed in the City Civil Court is so removed, does it follow the general rule or is it governed by any special provisions ?3. I must first turn to the Court Fees Act. Chapter II of that Act relates to fees in the High Courts and in the Presidency Small Cause Courts; Chapter III to ...
Tag this Judgment!