Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: VAT RATES :: cpt :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit
 
 
From the Courts »
 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Inter Globe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd.
 Akum Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited Through: Director Shri. Sanjeev Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-2 New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns „n? Petals
 Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt.Ltd (Delhi High Court)
  State Of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (Supreme Court)
 CIT vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal (Supreme Court)
 Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi
 Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Vishwa Hindu Parishad
 ITAT Proposes Important Changes To Tribunal Rules
 Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Court admits pleas challenging G.O. on anti-land grabbing cells
October, 01st 2011

The Madras High Court on Friday admitted two writ petitions filed by advocates challenging a Tamil Nadu G.O. of July 28 forming 39 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in the State.

A specially constituted Division Bench comprising Justices K.N.Basha and N.Paul Vasanthakumar directed the authorities to file the counter by October 20. It posted the petitions for final disposal on October 21.

The Bench dismissed a petition by the DMK's legal wing secretary seeking to quash the G.O., as not maintainable.

In his petition, R.Thamaraiselvan, a DMK MP and advocate, said the G.O. was issued on political considerations and it violated various laws including the Transfer of Property Act and the Specific Relief Act and the Constitution.

G.Devarajan, also an advocate, in his petition said there were no guidelines issued to police officials to deal with land grabbing complaints.

It meant that unguided power was vested with police. The government's action amounted to usurping the civil courts' powers. The police were not complying with the mandatory provisions under the Cr.P.C. Hence the PIL, as a large number of persons were affected.

The Advocate-General (AG), A.Navaneethakrishnan, raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions.

The DMK's legal wing secretary, R.S.Bharathi, alleged that the special cells had been constituted to ruin the political career of DMK men in the eyes of the public and police terrorism is let loose. The government order was issued only on political grounds.

The Bench said the AG argued that as on date about 15,900 complaints had been received. Only 673 cases were registered. Sixty-nine persons belonging to DMK were prosecuted. The remaining were cases registered against persons who were not DMK workers. The cases registered so far were not confined to the alleged offences for the period from 2006-2011 (DMK rule).

The pleadings of the DMK's legal wing mainly revolved round the interest of the petitioner, a political party. We are unable to see any element of public interest. The Bench said it was of the considered view that there was no regime targeting or political witch-hunting as alleged. No public interest arose for consideration in the petition. It dismissed the petition.

Even though a writ petition had been filed by an MP of the DMK, he was basically an advocate and raised legal contentions, which required detailed counter affidavits on merits. Similarly, the other petition by Mr.Devarajan also contained legal issues for adjudication.

The petitioners in these writ petitions being advocates, their locus standi cannot be doubted. In the absence of a counter affidavit filed regarding the legal issues raised, the Bench said it was of the view that the two petitions should be admitted.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Internet Marketing Website Marketing Internet Promotion Internet Marketing India Website Marketing India Internet Promotion India Internet Marketing Consultancy Website Marketing Consulta

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions