Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing K.V. Kadiresan & Com., By Partner K.V. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Reptd, By The ... on 14 June, 1984

M/S.Vijayalakshmi Marketing vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 July, 2024

10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The demand made by the sub-Registrar is also set aside. The 47-A proceedings are quashed. All duty collected from the appellant except the duty of 5% + 1% i.e., found payable as per the judgment of this Court in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government (Supra) will be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment till date of repayment. It is seen that the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.74,50,000/- towards additional duty in the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The said sum will also be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment viz., 22.03.2024 till date of repayment. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

The Inspector General Of Registration vs Ashwin Exim India Private Limited on 12 June, 2025

10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The demand made by the sub-Registrar is also set aside. The 47-A 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 01:04:51 pm ) W.A.(MD)Nos.2737 and 2738 of 2024 proceedings are quashed. All duty collected from the appellant except the duty of 5% + 1% i.e., found payable as per the judgment of this Court in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government (Supra) will be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment till date of repayment. It is seen that the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.74,50,000/- towards additional duty in the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The said sum will also be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment viz., 22.03.2024 till date of repayment. No costs.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

M/S.Tri Infra Studio Pvt. Limited vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 23 September, 2025

10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The demand made by the sub-Registrar is also set aside. The 47-A proceedings are quashed. All duty collected from the appellant except the duty of 5% + 1% i.e., found payable as per the judgment of this Court in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government (Supra) will be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment till date of repayment. It is seen that the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.74,50,000/- towards additional duty in the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The said sum will also be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment viz., 22.03.2024 till date of repayment. No costs.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

M/S.Nsunil Pulp And Paper Mills (P) Ltd vs The Inspector General Registration on 7 November, 2025

10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The demand made by the sub-Registrar is also set aside. The 47-A proceedings are quashed. All duty collected from the appellant except the duty of 5% + 1% i.e., found payable as per the judgment of this Court in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government (Supra) will be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment till date of repayment. It is seen that the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.74,50,000/- towards additional duty in the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The said sum will also be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment viz., 22.03.2024 till date of repayment. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.” 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 03:49:48 pm )
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

The Inspector General Of Registration vs M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Cotex Private ... on 15 April, 2026

10. In fine, the writ appeal is allowed the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside. The demand made by the sub-Registrar is also set aside. The 47~A proceedings are quashed. All duty collected from the appellant except the duty of 5% + 1% i.e., found payable as per the judgment of this Court in Bell Tower Enterprises LLP, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government (Supra) will be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment till date of repayment. It is seen that the petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs.74,50,000/~ towards additional duty in the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The said sum will also be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 9% from the date of payment viz., 22.03.2024 till date of repayment. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

M.Rajesh vs The Director General Of Police/ on 17 October, 2022

The subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC 322 (V.Lavanya and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others) proceeds on the premise that an authoritative pronouncement had been rendered in Tej Prakash Pathak's case which is actually not the case. I am, therefore, inclined to follow Mithilesh Kumar's case.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document

K.Anbazhagan vs The Director on 20 October, 2022

The subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2017) 1 SCC https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 W.P(MD)No.24198 of 2022 322 (V.Lavanya and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary and Others) proceeds on the premise that an authoritative pronouncement had been rendered in Tej Prakash Pathak's case which is actually not the case. I am, therefore, inclined to follow Mithilesh Kumar's case.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G R Swaminathan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next