Chennai Court January 1989 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Geranco Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Vadapalani Ass ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1989
Reported in: [1989]74STC240(Mad)
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J. 1. Mr. M. S. Rajasekaran, Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice for the respondent. 2. The writ petition is for the following relief : '...... to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to accept the bank guarantee produced by the petitioner and acknowledge receipt of the same to enable the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for grant of stay, pending disposal of the appeal before the appellate authority .......' 3. According to the petitioner, against the order of assessment, he preferred an appeal and filed an application for stay before the appellate authority. In order to seek an order of stay, he obtained a bank guarantee from the Indian Bank, Harbour Branch, Madras, for a sum of Rs. 36,672.35 as a security for the grant of stay. As per the procedure, the bank guarantee together with the security bond have to be produced before the assessing authority for verification before the sa...
Chandmama Publications Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Mad)97; [1989]176ITR321(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm. In relation to the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, the assessee claimed deduction in respect of the provision made for retrenchment compensation in sums of Rs. 18,561, Rs. 9,318 and Rs. 19,142, respectively. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim so made by the assessee and on further appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was held that there was no certainty of Payment with regard to retrenchment compensation as in the case of gratuity payment and that there was also no method of working out the basis of quantification of the prospective retrenchment compensation if and when it was required to be paid and, therefore, the claim for deducting the provision for retrenchment compensation from the profits and gains cannot be countenanced. In the appeals preferred by the assessee before the Tribunal, the disallowance was upheld on the ground that there was no ascertained liability and the possibility of such a liability a...
K.A. Sukumar Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR208(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows : '... Pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the hundis seized at the time of the inspection of the petitioner's advocate at premises No. 2, Pudupet Garden Street, Royapettah, Madras-14, in accordance with section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act and issue such further writ, order or direction as this honourable court may deem fit and proper...' 2. Notice of motion has been ordered by Sivasubramaniam J. on December 2, 1988. 3. Mr. C. V. Rajan, counsel for the Income-tax Department, appears with instructions. 4. It will suffice for the purpose of this case to give a direction to the respondents to return the hundis which belongs to the petitioner, seized at the time of the search of the petitioner's advocate at premises No2 Pudupet Garden Street, Royapettah, Madras-14, after taking xerox copies at the petitioner's cost. However, the petitioner is directed to produce the original hundis as an...
N. Bala Subramanian Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ219
ORDERSivasubramanian, J.1. The present Writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pass orders on the show cause letter dated 30-6-1988 before 15-2-1989.2. The Office returned the papers requesting the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein to present the same before the State Administrative Tribunal, as the subject matter of the writ petition comes under its jurisdiction. Since the learned Counsel represented the papers stating that under Section 15 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the State Tribunal will have jurisdiction only in respect of service matters and since the prayer in this writ petition is to direct the Government to complete the inquiry before 15-2-1989, only a writ petition would lie and that therefore, the said Administrative Tribunals Act is not a bar. Therefore, the matter was posted before Court for deciding the question of maintainability.3. Shri K. Chandra Mouli, learned Counsel appearing for the pe...
N. Thirumalai Vs. Binny Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ340Mad
ORDER1. This revision is directed by the plaintiff against the order passed by the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, confirming the order of dismissal of the injunction application filed by him. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows :- The case of the petitioner is that the jointed Binny & Co. Madras, on 10th March, 1954, as a clerk at the registered office at Armenian Street, Madras. As per the appointment orders issued in 1966 for clerks like him, they will be required to work at the registered office at Armenian Street or at Carnatic House at Perambur and that there was no express service condition that they were liable for transfer. There was no office at Carnatic House when he joined, and while the clerical and subordinate staff were transferred from Armenian Street to Carnatic House in 1966 to 1984, they were given a disturbance allowance of Rs. 300/- which meant that they were not liable for transfer. He ...
His Holiness Sri-la-sri Shanmugha Desigha Gananasambanda Paramacharia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ466
ORDERS. Ramalingam, J.1. Petitioner is a hereditary trustee of certain temples and kattalais. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu and the District Collector of Thanjavur to forbear from collecting 4/5th of the land revenue or kist due for faslis 1383 to 1387 in respect of lands belonging to the petitioner.2. The petitioner contends that under Section 6 of the Public Trust Act, a religious trust is prohibited from having any land under pannai beyond the ceiling limit and therefore, the petitioner has to let out his lands to a large number of tenants. Though originally the tenants were inducted in possession of any agreed amount of rent/lease payable by them by reason of Tamil Nadu Acts designed to relieve cultivating tenants of their liability for payment of accumulated arrears of lease, the position emerged that if a tenant, who was in arrears during the faslis 1383 to 1387 pays the 1/5th of the arrears of the lease, ...
Mysore Dasaprakash Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)75CTR(Mad)120; [1989]177ITR38(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on a hotel business. For the assessment year 1975-76 relevant for the accounting year ending on March 31, 1975, the assessee filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 15,820. The Income-tax Officer disallowed depreciation claimed by the assessee under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the rate of 100% on electrical switch boards, distribution boards, etc., and sanitary pipeline installations in respect of thirteen new rooms constructed in the existing building on the ground that such installations should be considered as an integrated unit and depreciation allowed at 10% and that it was not correct to work out separately the cost of individual items of materials used and then to ascertain whether the cost did not exceed Rs. 750. On appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was held that though switch boards, distribution boards, veran...
A. Subramani Vs. Mani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC253; 1990ACJ37
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The injured victim of a motor accident, who has been awarded compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has filed the present appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate.2. Facts briefly are: The appellant, while he was getting down from a passenger bus bearing registration No. MDH 4589 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the second respondent, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the first respondent, fell down and sustained fracture of fibula as well as fracture of 2 metatarsus bones in the left leg. He filed M.O.P. No. 201 of 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge-II), Chengalpattu, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 contended that it was the appellant who jumped out of the bus before the bus had been brought to a halt and t...
Thoznilalar Transport Company Vs. Valliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: II(1989)ACC242; 1990ACJ201
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The owner of a bus, against whom and his insurer the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has passed an award apportioning the liability as between them, has filed the present appeal contending that the deceased was not a passenger at the time of the accident and that, therefore, the liability of his insurer is unlimited and also contending that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive. The claimants (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) have preferred cross-objections on the ground that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate.2. Facts briefly are: On 5.3.1980 the deceased Jayaraman, who is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent and the son of the third respondent, was travelling in a passenger bus bearing registration No. MDJ 3092 belonging to the appellant and insured with the fifth respondent. The bus was driven by the driver, the fourth respondent. The deceased who had boarded the bus at Alangayam was due for Chekkumedu. Whe...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V.K. Sundaravali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1989
Reported in: 1990ACJ821
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The insurance company against which the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has passed an award has filed the present appeal contending that deceased was a passenger at the time of the accident and the Tribunal erred in holding him not to be a passenger and consequently placing the entire liability on the insurance company.2. Facts briefly are: On 3.5.1980 the deceased V.K. Krishnan, who is the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. TMY 1029 belonging to the fourth respondent and insured with the appellant. When the bus stopped at Srinivasanagar bus stop, the deceased, who was to get down at that bus stop, was descending down the steps. Before he could rest his foot on the ground, the driver of the bus moved the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the deceased was thrown out and sustained serious injuries to which he succumbed later in the hospital. Respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »