Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2002]126STC550(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of four writ petitions, they being W.P. Nos. 12463 of 1998, 12464 of 1998, 12465 of 1998 and 12466 of 1998. All the writ petitions more or the less pertained to a common controversy involved.2. Four original petitions, viz., O.P. Nos. 1326 and 1327 of 1997, 1727 of 1997, 3999 of 1997 and 868 of 1998 came to be disposed of by the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal by a common order. The present writ petitions pertained to that common order. These original petitions pertained to the various orders passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short 'the Act') as also the Government Orders passed. W.P. No. 12463 of 1998 is against the order passed in O.P. No. 868 of 1998 challenging the communications dated November 11, 1996 and February 13, 1997. W.P. No. 12464 of 1998 pertains to the order passed in O.P. No. 1327 of 1997 which was against the proceedings dated March 27, 1997 rejecting the request of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.8741 and 9385 of 2011 have been filed by the first and second accused in Crime No.203 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal.2.The averments in the petitions are as follows:(i) The case has been registered against the petitioners/A1 & A2 and others under Crime No.203 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 387 and 420 I.P.C.(ii) The property bearing D.No.41/67, Welwyn inn Cottage, Kodaikanal town, Dindigul District, is originally belongs to one John Tapp and he bequeathed the property to his legal heirs by a will dated 09.10.1939 and the same was probated vide order dated 16.12.1941 in O.P.No.58 of 1941 on the file of the District Judge, Madurai.(iii) On 24.04.1989, the said property has been purchased by Bhagchand Uttamchand Galada/A1 and his other family members from the legal heirs of John Tapp vide registered sale deeds. The patta is also stands in their names.(iv) In the above said property, there were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1980Mad171
1. This reference by the Chief Controlling Revenue 'Authority, Board of Revenue, Mad under Sec. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, IBM, arises under the following circumstances: The petitioner is the Chief Controlling Revenue. Authority, and the respondent is one K. S. Dwarakanathan. The respondent obtained an assignment of a decree from one Thirumathi G. Rathnavalli an 17-11-1977. The decree itself was passed in an original suit,O.S. 7230 of 1972, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. That decree was in favour of G. Rathnavalli, under which the defendant in that suit was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,853 with further interest as specified therein and the said deposit was to be made by 19-6-1976. It is this decree which Rathnavalli had obtained which was assigned in favour of the respondent in these Proceedings by document No. P. .312/77 dated. 16-11-1971 registered in the books of the joint Sub Registration I Saidapet, Madras. The said deed was engrossed on non-judicial stamp paper ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2008Mad203; (2008)3MLJ657
ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. These writ petitions involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The challenge in all these petitions is to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) (hereinafter referred to as 'the T.N.Acquisition Act') for the expansion of the Chennai Airport. It appears that in the year 2005, the Airports Authority of India wanted to expand the existing Chennai Airport to meet the rapid development in air traffic and air transport. The Airports Authority of India is forced to develop the Chennai Airport as an international hub and to extend the runway to sustain the developing economic growth. The Minister of State for Civil Aviation, Government of India by a letter dated 21.4.2005 requested the State Government to provide land for expansion of the existing Chennai Airport. On 21....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ289
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. In these writ petitions, the challenge is to the amendment brought in by the Tamil Nadu Act 11 of 1996 to the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Second Amendment Act, 1994 and a prayer is sought to declare them as ultra vires and unconstitutional.2. Sections 4 to 6 of the Amendment Act reads as follows:Section 4. Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, as subsequently modified, to have effect subject to modifications.- The principal Act shall, on and from the 6th day of April 1960, have effect, as if, Section 22 had been renumbered as Sub-section (1) of that section and after Sub-section (1) as so renumbered, the following Sub-section had been added, namely:2. For the purpose of Sub-section (1) if any transfer or partition has the effect of reducing the extent of surplus land in excess of the ceiling area, such transfer or partition, whether bona fide or not, shall be construed as defeating the provisions of this Act. Section 5. Validation.- Notwithstanding ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. Whether posing of a political repartee on the Twitter by a sitting Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir State can invite the wrath of the process of law at Madurai? and Whether the petitioner's complaint to the Inspector General of Police, South Zone should be wetted by inviting opinion of the Attorney General of India are the questions to be answered in this criminal original petition.2.This criminal original petition came to be posted on being specially ordered before this Court. Heard the counsels for all the parties.3.The petitioner claims to be a practicing Advocate in this High Court. He has filed the original petition seeking for a direction to get a legal opinion from the Attorney General of India / Advocate General of Tamil Nadu relatable to the locus standi of the criminal complaint dated 02.09.2011 on the file of the third respondent Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and to register a case according to law.4.When this criminal original petition was filed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer:- These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.6.2008 made in AS.Nos.592/2007 and 59/2008 by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, remanding the suit in OS.No.4430/2005 on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for fresh trial. For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sundararajan-CMA.1087/09JUDGEMENT1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.6.2008 made in AS.Nos.592/2007 and 59/2008 by the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, remanding the suit in OS.No.4430/2005 on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for fresh trial.2. The above said suit was filed by the Plaintiff, who is the Appellant in CMA.No.1087/2009, for partition of her half share and for permanent injunction, restraining the 1st Defendant, who is the 1st Respondent in CMA.No.1087/2009 from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Tax Case Appeals against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed in ITA. 1636/ MDS/ 2010 and CO.NO.133/MDS/2010 "A" Bench, Chennai dated 10th February 2012. (Judgment of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J)1. Tax Case (Appeals) are at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Tribunal by raising following questions of law:-" 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in not considering the issue raised by the Revenue in its grounds of appeal that the provisions of Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40(a)(ia) is retrospective or not?2. Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the additional evidence filed by the revenue is admissible and at the same time for holding that the assessee had not converted those additional evidence without adverting to the Chart filed at the instance of the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice?3. Whether the Tribunal is right in dismissing th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Civil Revision Petitions filed under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2012 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCA Nos.523 and 522 of 2010 confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.07.2010 of the Rent Controller of the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in RCOP No.2093 of 2009.G.RAJASURIA, J.ORDER1. Animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2012 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCA Nos.523 and 522 of 2010 confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in RCOP No.2093 of 2009, these civil revisions petitions are focussed.2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the learned Rent Controller.3. A summation and summarisation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1952Mad95; (1951)2MLJ241
ORDERMack, J.1. All these petitioners have been convicted cinder Section 7 (1) (a) and (b), Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, by the learned Third and Seventh Presidency Magistrates. They have all been tried in pairs and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, except petitioners in Cri. B. O. Nos. 442 and 489 of 1951 who have been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment, The case against them is that on dates between 10th March 1951 and 4th April 1961 they went in pairs near the shop of Kishinchand Chellaram in Mount Road with placards and black flags and sought to dissuade intending customers from purchasing in this North Indian shop,2. On the first of these petitions filed cri. R. O. nO. 442 of 1951, I directed tbe release of the petitioners on bail. Then on a batch of petitions filed Cri, R. C. NOS. 484, 485, 487 and 488 to 193 of 1951 instead of granting bail I directed the production of the petitioners in this Court from-the Penitentiary. The learned Magistrate as...
Tag this Judgment!