SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

SEKAR REPORTER Blog

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.34104 of 2019, 932, 936, 1978, 1980, 2559, 2564, 3060, 3072, School property tax batch case allowed the impugned resolution, to the extent to which it levies surcharge, is found contrary to the provisions of the respective enactments and such levies are quashed. These Writ Petitions are allowed. For Petitioner : Dr.Father Xavier Arulraj, Senior Counsel   for M/s.Father Xavier Associates For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazrudeen,   Additional Advocate General   assisted by Mr.P.Haribabu, Govt. Advocate   Mrs.C.Sangamithirai,   Special Government Pleader – R1   Ms.S.Vaitheeswari   Standing Counsel – R2 & R3

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 8, 2022

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.34104 of 2019, 932, 936, 1978, 1980, 2559, 2564, 3060, 3072, School property tax batch case allowed the impugned resolution, to the extent to which it levies surcharge, is found contrary to the provisions of the respective enactments and such levies are quashed. These Writ Petitions are allowed. For Petitioner : Dr.Father Xavier Arulraj, Senior Counsel   for M/s.Father Xavier Associates For Respondents : Mr.Haja Nazrudeen,   Additional Advocate General   assisted by Mr.P.Haribabu, Govt. Advocate   Mrs.C.Sangamithirai,   Special Government Pleader – R1   Ms.S.Vaitheeswari   Standing Counsel – R2 & R3

JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.06.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH W.P.No.34104 of 2019, 932, 936, 1978, 1980, 2559, 2564, 3060, 3072, 3068, 3408, 3637, 3815, 3819, 5200, 6023, 7023, 7029, 12765, 8690...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite contract and an indivisible one. A composite contract is one that would involve components of sale and service, whereas an indivisible contract, also involving components of sale and service, is one where the distinction between the two is very fine and difficult to determine.

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 8, 2022

Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite contract and an indivisible one. A composite contract is one that would involve components of sale and service, whereas an indivisible contract, also involving components of sale and service, is one where the distinction between the two is very fine and difficult to determine.

Justice Anitha Sumanth has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Supreme Court has specifically noted the difference between a composite...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.A.No.146 of 2022. Age certificate must judgment of the learned Magalir Neethimandram, Salem dated 29.06.2018 in S.C.No.23 of 2015 is set aside, inasmuch as the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 6 r/w Sections 5(k) and 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and the conviction is modified as one under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code; For the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is imposed with punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months;

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 7, 2022

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.A.No.146 of 2022. Age certificate must judgment of the learned Magalir Neethimandram, Salem dated 29.06.2018 in S.C.No.23 of 2015 is set aside, inasmuch as the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 6 r/w Sections 5(k) and 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and the conviction is modified as one under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code; For the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant is imposed with punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months;

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.07.2022 CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Crl.A.No.146 of 2022 Azhagan @ Prabhu State by the Inspector of Police All Women Police...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
W.P.No.9783 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. It is made clear that this Court is not attempting to interfere with the functioning of either TNERC or TANGEDCO and the only reason why this Court had undertaken this exercise is to ensure that the process and procedures are put in place and the functioning gets more regulated in accordance with the Electricity Act and the regulations that have been brought into force.  In order to make some headway in this process, this Court is inclined to keep this Writ Petition as a continuing mandamus so that there will be regular follow up on the developments that takes place.           8.Post this Writ Petition under the caption ‘for filing status report’ on 22.08.2022 at 2.15 p.m.           04.08.2022

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 6, 2022

W.P.No.9783 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. It is made clear that this Court is not attempting to interfere with the functioning of either TNERC or TANGEDCO and the only reason why this Court had undertaken this exercise is to ensure that the process and procedures are put in place and the functioning gets more regulated in accordance with the Electricity Act and the regulations that have been brought into force.  In order to make some headway in this process, this Court is inclined to keep this Writ Petition as a continuing mandamus so that there will be regular follow up on the developments that takes place.           8.Post this Writ Petition under the caption ‘for filing status report’ on 22.08.2022 at 2.15 p.m.           04.08.2022

W.P.No.9783 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012   N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.           Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court on 28.07.2022, the matter was taken up for hearing today and this Court...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
நீதிபதிகள் வைத்தியநாதன் மற்றும் ஜெகதீஷ் சந்திரா அமர்வு. காளான் போல வளர்ந்து வருவதாக வேதனை தெரிவித்த நீதிபதிகள், இவற்றை இரும்பு கரம் கொண்டு அடக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் குற்றவாளிகள் சட்டத்தின் படி இருந்து தப்பிக்க முடியாத வகையில் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது. ,

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 6, 2022

நீதிபதிகள் வைத்தியநாதன் மற்றும் ஜெகதீஷ் சந்திரா அமர்வு. காளான் போல வளர்ந்து வருவதாக வேதனை தெரிவித்த நீதிபதிகள், இவற்றை இரும்பு கரம் கொண்டு அடக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் குற்றவாளிகள் சட்டத்தின் படி இருந்து தப்பிக்க முடியாத வகையில் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வேண்டும் என்றும் சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது. ,

வேலை வாங்கி தருவதாக பணம் வாங்கி மோசடி செய்வதும் போலி சான்றுகள் தயாரிப்பதும் காளான் போல வேலை வாங்கி தருவதாக பணம் வாங்கி மோசடி செய்வதும் போலி சான்றுகள் தயாரிப்பதும் காளான் போல வளர்ந்து வருவதாக வேதனை தெரிவித்த நீதிபதிகள், இவற்றை இரும்பு கரம் கொண்டு அடக்க...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is also directed to conduct an enquiry so as to ascertain as to whether any other complaint is pending as against the 4th respondent, who claims to be an Advocate. Registry is directed to print the name of Mr.Govardhan, learned Standing Counsel for the Bharathidasan University in the place of Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Additional Government Pleader.                     List this matter on 10.08.2022.                                                               (S.V.N., J.)          (A.D.J.C., J.,)                                                                     28.07.2022

Uncategorized

 by · Published August 5, 2022

The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is also directed to conduct an enquiry so as to ascertain as to whether any other complaint is pending as against the 4th respondent, who claims to be an Advocate. Registry is directed to print the name of Mr.Govardhan, learned Standing Counsel for the Bharathidasan University in the place of Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Additional Government Pleader.                     List this matter on 10.08.2022.                                                               (S.V.N., J.)          (A.D.J.C., J.,)                                                                     28.07.2022

H.C.P.No.728 of 2022   Petitioner Respondent D.SHANTHI LATE W/O.DURAIRAJ, NO.19-A 11TH CROSS STREET, POOMBUGAR NAGAR, KOLATHUR, CHENNAI – 600 099. THE STATE REP BY ITS, THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, V-6 KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, KOLATHUR...

FacebookTwitterEmailBloggerGmailLinkedInWhatsAppPinterestTumblrShare
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Exit mobile version