Court : Chennai Madurai
..... 09.2013 the second respondent has issued notification in g.o.(ms)no.143 (environment and forest (fr.5) department for the declaration of kodaikanal wild life sanctuary under section 26 a1(b) of wild life (protection) act 1972, since the kodaikanal wild life sanctuary comes under the jurisdiction including theni and dindigul district, the kodaikanal wild life sanctuary area to an extent of 60,895.482 hectares. he has also states that the issuance of impugned notification in g.o.ms.no ..... study and the existence nature and livelihood of the villagers, who are having cultivating rights in the said area. hence, the present impugned order has been passed. 10. the writ petitioner also states that as per section 21 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, proclamation collect when a notification has been issued under section 18, the collector shall (within a period of sixty days) publish in the regional language in every town and village in or in the neighbourhood of the area comprised therein a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2007(1)CTC513
..... fisheries department dated 6.3.1976 (ex.p-4) the state government approved the proposal of the chief conservator of forests to notify kalkakadu reserve forest as sanctuary for wild life and accordingly a notification under section 18(1) of the wild life protection act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act) was issued declaring its intention to constitute the said forest as wildlife sanctuary. on 14.11.1976, as per ex.p-5, permission sought for by the plaintiff for clear ..... after the appeal was listed for hearing, a petition has been filed for raising additional ground to the following effect:the suit is barred by section 60 of the wild life protection act since the actions complained of by the plaintiff as against the defendant/state government are all one which have been taken in good faith under the powers of the wild life protection act, 1972 and hence the state government and its officers have an immunity from being sued.10. a counter affidavit has been filed by the plaintiff .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1999(3)CTC494
..... that, the petitioners have got a fundamental freedom of an occupation of grazing inside the anamalai mountain range by virtue of the customary right in existence prior to the coming into force of the constitution. that fundamental right is subject to a reasonable restriction and that can be imposed. the wild life (protection) act is an act which provides for the protection of wild animals and birds and in order to protect them, restrictions and prohibitions have been imposed, which are reasonable and can be imposed. as rightly contended the claim of the petitioners that adivasis are engaged and the cattle are being taken for a distance of 40 miles daily are totally unrealistic and without any evidence, record .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... 34 deals with cases where a person, who already in possession of license and the area having been declared as sanctuary, is empowered to apply to the authority to retain the license as excepting from the provisions of the act. therefore, on analysis of the scheme of the act as more particularly as contained in chapter iv, it is with a view to impose certain restrictions for bearing in mind the object of the wild life protection act, which has been enacted to provide for protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary therewith, thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country.9. the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1994)1MLJ481
..... this aspect relates to the notification issued under the wild life (protection) act. i have already indicated that the notification issued under section 37 of the wild life (protection) act, is only in respect of the prevention of hunting wild animals and birds in the area. there is no notification declaring the area as a forest area or a sanctuary. therefore, it cannot be contended that the respondents have violated any of the notifications under the wild life protection act or the forest conservation act, 1980.15. while paying homage and deliberating on ..... them as parties because their affidavits also disclose that their interest in maintaining the ecology and environment of the area. a large extent of 4.3 square kilometres has been declared under section 37 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 as being an area closed to hunting for a period of five years from 13.5.1992. this area is right from the adyar river on the south upto the road leading from foreshore estate to the kabali .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.19887 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned transfer order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.049797/W2/E1/2015 dated 08.09.2016 (served to the petitioner on 03.10.2016) and the consequential relieving order passed by the 4th respondent in her proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 161 of 2016 dated 03.10.2016 and quash the same as illegal. Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.21806 of 2016: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.049797/W2/E1/2015 dated 08.09.2016 and the consequential relieving order passed by the 3rd respondent in her proceedings in Na.Ka.No.150 of 2016 dated 16.09.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pose the petitioner in the 3rd respondent school.) Common Or...
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!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.06.2015 made in I.T.A.Nos.434, 442 and 443/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.) Common Judgment: Rajiv Shakdher, J. C.M.P.No.2395 and 2396 of 2017 (Dispense with): 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. T.C.(A)Nos.139 to 141 of 2017: 2. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue as against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'), dated 19.06.2015. 3. By virtue of the impugned judgment, a common order was passed qua Assessment Years (A.Y.s) 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. 4. The common issue, which arose before the Tribunal for consideration was, whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short 'the Act') should be confirmed qua the Assessee. 5. The brief facts, which are required to be noticed are as follows: 5.1. In the concer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2011 made in A.S.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2010 made in O.S.No.987 of 2005, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.) 1. Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.12 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Karur, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.987 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur, the plaintiffs have filed the above Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.987 of 2005 to declare the registered sale deed dated 03.01.1994 in respect of the suit property executed by the defendants 1 to 5 in favour of the sixth defendant is null and void and consequently, directing the sixth defendant to surrender the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs 3 to 6. 3. The br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, (Mahilar Fast Track Court) Erode, in Spl.S.C.No.35 of 2015 dated 12.04.2016.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. Every person has a right to a fair trial by a competent Court is the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India "Denial of fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as it is to the to the victim and the society".The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr vs State Of Gujarat and Ors reported in 2006 3 SCC 374 has explained the concept of fair trail and said that it is central to the administration of justice and the cardinal principal of protection of human rights. In the instant case, the principal ground raised by the appellant is that there was denial of fair trail to him before the trial Court. Let us go into the circumstances under which such a plea is raised by the acc...
Tag this Judgment!