Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the punjab tax on lotteries act 2005 Court: chennai Year: 2007 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.041 seconds)

Sep 07 2007 (HC)

R. Chandrasekaran Vs. Indian Bank Rep. by Its Chairman and Managing Di ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-07-2007

Reported in : (2007)IIILLJ1004Mad

..... interpretation with regulations of the bank for the purpose of defending himself when the authority has not even taken a final decision. in a similar circumstance, arising under the punjab co-operative societies act in chanan singh v. registrar, co-op.socy. the supreme court has held that when the disciplinary authority has not taken any final action, the writ petition challenging ..... petitioner are vague is not acceptable. therefore, the division bench judgment of the karnataka high court relied on by the counsel for the petitioner rendered in venkatesh v. syndicate bank 2005 (1) lln 242 has no application to the facts of the case. 18. finally, this is a classic instance where the disciplinary proceedings are pending and the petitioner has taken ..... does not know about the rules is unbelievable. according to the learned senior counsel, even before the charge memo was issued, a show-cause notice was issued on 27.6.2005 itself and the petitioner also sent a reply. the petitioner cannot question the validity of the enquiry proceedings at every stage before passing orders. learned senior counsel would submit that ..... to him, the failure to produce documents would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. he would rely upon the judgment in venkatesh gururao kuratti v. syndicate bank 2005 (1) lln 242 and other cases to substantiate his contention.(c) it is his further case that the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by long laches. the charges are relating .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2007 (HC)

itc Limited Rep. by Its Constituted Attorney, Subhatosh Banerjee Vs. t ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-22-2007

Reported in : 2007(2)CTC577; (2007)5MLJ897; (2007)7VST367(Mad)

..... t.b. mehtab majid & co. v. state of madras : air1963sc928 the supreme court considered the effect of section 3 of the madras general sates tax act, 1939 read with rule 16 whereby tanned hides and skins imported from outside the state of madras and sold within the state were subjected to a higher rate ..... consumption, use or sale therein;6. it can be seen from a plain reading of section 2(c) and section 3 that levy of entry tax under the act is only on goods which are imported from any place outside the state of tamil nadu for consumption, use or sale within the sate. the ..... s case the state has filed an additional counter whereby the state has sought to project certain figures of expenditure incurred from the year 2002-03 to 2005-06 in the matter of laying roads, construction of bridges, etc., which according to the state is said to be a quantifiable data to satisfy ..... anraj v. govt. of t.n. : air1986sc63 the government of tamil nadu exempted the lottery tickets issued by it totally while levying tax on lottery tickets issued by other governments and sold in tamil nadu. the court held that laws imposing taxes can amount to restriction on trade, commerce and intercourse if they hampered the free flow ..... orissa, g.k. krishnan v. state of t.n., international tourist corporation v. state of haryana, malwa bus service (p) ltd. v. state of punjab, meenakshi v. state of karnataka, b.a. jayaram v. union of india and state of maharashtra v. madhukar balkrishna badiya.(emphasis supplied)27. if an entry .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2007 (HC)

T. Uday Kumar Vs. the District Collector,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-05-2007

Reported in : (2007)6MLJ1439

..... represented by its procurator, coimbatore and ors.), : [1986]158itr574(sc) (union of india v. godfrey philips india ltd.), : [2004]269itr97(sc) (state of punjab v. nestle india ltd. and anr.) and (2007) 5 mlj 436 (sc)-(amey co-operative housing society ltd. and anr. v. public concern for governance trust ..... m/s. metro steel rolling mill pvt. ltd., transferred its 1/3rd right in favour of khimraj sakariya by a sale deed, dated 19.10.2005. similarly, mr. ramamurthy sarvanakumar conveyed his 1/3 right in the subject property in favour of v. bhuvaneshwari w/o. the 11th respondent by a ..... the change of such entry dated 10.6.2004 in favour of t.neduncheziyan, and others and subsequent change made by proceedings, dated 5.5.2005 in favour of m/s. metro steel rolling mills pvt. ltd. and others~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~15 29.3.200 notice issued by the dro to vi ..... directing the 11th respondent not to proceed with the constructions since the issue relating to cancellation of patta, dated 10.6.2004 and 9.5.2005 was pending consideration.16. challenging the same, the 11th respondent filed w.p. no. 8618 of 2006 and pending disposal of the writ ..... the tamil nadu urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1978, this court had no occasion to examine the nature of possession as claimed on behalf of the erstwhile owner rajalakshmi ammal. unfortunately, the assistant commissioner of urban land tax also supported the petitioner in that writ petition by written .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2007 (HC)

J. Naval Kishore Vs. D. Swarna Bhadran,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-03-2007

Reported in : 2008(1)CTC97; (2007)5MLJ1417

..... as offering 'conclusive' proof and, therefore, safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. in magan bihari lal v. state of punjab : 1977crilj164 , while dealing with evidence of a handwriting expert, this court opined:we think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the ..... and ors.; 2004 (2) lw 852 uma devi nambiar and ors. v. t.c. sidhan (dead); : air2005sc52 meenamshiammal (dead) through lrs. v. chandrasekaran and anr.; 2005 (1) lw 455 janaki devi v. r. vasanthi and 6 ors.; : air2006sc1975 gurdev kaur and ors. v. kaki and ors.13. in the light of the rival ..... of filing of the originals can be considered only under exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.45. c.m.p. no. 926/2005:since defendant has taken a specific ground that he has not signed in ex. p-8, certified copy of ex. p-8 is sought to be ..... let us now examine the evidence of dw-1. seshmul, an octogenarian, doing business in pharmaceuticals on a large scale. dw-1 is an income tax assessee with crores of rupees as annual turn over in the business. there is no dispute that dw-1 is well affluent and a close friend of ..... air1990ori232 brundaban nayak and ors. v. gobardan biswal and ors. where attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, under section71 evidence act, it has been provided that in such circumstances, the execution of the document may be proved by other evidence.27. the learned senior counsel submitted that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 2007 (HC)

Villiupuram Market Committee, Rep. by Its Special Officer, Vs. K. Seka ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-15-2007

Reported in : (2007)3MLJ666

..... force.24. however, when we refer to the decision of the honourable supreme court reported in : [1996]1scr730 (puran singh v. state of punjab), the elaborate discussion contained therein, which have been extracted by us in the earlier part of our order, we find that the position is ..... the constitution...16. the honourable supreme court stated the above legal position when it dealt with a case, which arose from the state of punjab and haryana, where under rule 32 of the writ rules, it would provide that, in all matters for which no provision is made in ..... relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, in the decision reported in air 1996 supreme court 1092 (puran singh v. state of punjab), the honourable supreme court, after referring to the specific exclusion as contained in explanation to section 141 c.p.c. held that the writ ..... objection in this writ support of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon : [1996]1scr730 (puran singh v. state of punjab), : air1997ap179 (hon'ble secretary and correspondent v. state of andhra pradesh), : [1999]2scr880 (superintending engineer v. b. subba reddy) and : 2004(176 ..... 1994)1scc475 (committee of management of pachaiyappa's trust v. official trustee of madras) and : (2005)1mlj394 (selvarani v. the commissioner, karaikudl municipality).9. the learned counsel further relied upon section 23(2) of the act and contended that there being no contract reduced to writing in the case of the writ petitioner, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2007 (HC)

Ramgopal Estates Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director K.S. Hemanth Kum ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-02-2007

Reported in : 2007(2)CTC369

..... (6) scc 667, (v) u.n.r. rao v. indra gandhi 1997 (2) scc 63, (vi) india drugs & pharmaceutical limited v. punjab drugs manufacturers' assn. : air1999sc1626 , (vii) pu. myllai hlychho v. state of mizoram : (2005)2scc92 and (viii) satyanarain shukla v. union of india 2006 (9) scc 69] 20.1. article 53 deals with the executive power of the ..... the subject but more relevant enactments for our purpose are: the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974 (the water act), the air (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1981 (the air act) and the environment (protection) act, 1986 (the environment act). the water act provides for the constitution of the central pollution control board by the central government and the constitution of ..... the activities. the conditions and directions of the environmental clearance to be issued by the ministry of environment and forests, government of india under the provisions of the environment act, shall scrupulously be adhered to, besides observing the conditions applicable for any such activities in crz-iii, as notified by the central government. as suggested by neeri, a ..... the state pollution control boards by various state governments in the country. the boards function under the control of the governments concerned. the water act prohibits the use of streams and wells for disposal of polluting matters. it also provides for restrictions on outlets and discharge of effluents without obtaining consent from the board .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //