Chennai Court February 1989 Judgments
Sudarshan Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR423(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus and to call for the records of the first respondent dated June 28, 1988, and further direct them to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,59,325. 2. The petitioner was the owner of a house property at No. 10, Rogers Road, Richards Town, Bangalore, and it entered into a sale agreement dated March 12, 1988, with a person in Bombay in respect of the property. The petitioner applied to the appropriate authority under the Income-tax Act for obtaining a no objection certificate under Chapter XXC of the Act. But by order dated May 23, 1988, the Department acquired the property for a sum of Rs. 23,00,000 under section 269UD(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By impugned letter dated June 28, 1988, the petitioner was informed that the amount of consideration payable to him will be reduced by Rs. 4,59,325 being tax arrears payable to the Department. 3. I have adjourned this matter many times in order to fa...
Tag this Judgment!Dharman and anr. Vs. N.C. Srinivasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ297
Padmini Jesuduri, J.1. The owner and driver respectively of a motor cycle against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, had passed an award, confirmed by this Court in appeal, have preferred this Letters Patent appeal.2. Facts briefly are: on 6-3-1980 at 7-05 p.m., motor cycle bearing registration No. T.M.C. 6883 which had formerly belonged to the third respondent herein and on the day of the accident here belonged to the first appellant, was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the second appellant and dashed against the first respondent claimant and caused him serious injuries. The first respondent filed O.P. No. 525 of 1980 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, claiming a compensation of Rs. 25,000.3. The appellants resisted the claim contending that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the second appellant, but was due to the negligence of the first res...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Vs. K. Sabanayagam and Govt. of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ485Mad
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. These two writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 2343 of 1981. The pronouncement of the learned single Judge of stands reported in Sabanayagam K. v. The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu. Housing Department and others : (1984)ILLJ87Mad . Writ Appeal No. 196 of 1983 is by the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', if occasion therefore arises, which was the second respondent in the writ petition. Writ Appeal No. 199 of 1983 is by the State of Tamil Nadu, the first-respondent in the writ petition. The petitioner in the writ petition is the first respondent in these two writ appeals. We propose to refer to the persons as they stood arrayed in writ petition. The petitioner projected the following prayer in the writ petition : 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus direc...
Tag this Judgment!R. Subbureddy Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Owning Southern Railway by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ229
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to call for the records in C.C.P. No. 8 of 1982 and C.C.P. No. 38 of 1984 dated 27-7-1988 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Central Labour Court, Madras, and quash the same.2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner was employed in the Southern Railway as General Clerk and in 1973 he was served with a charge-memo dated 28-11-1973 for the alleged misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 47.30 while he was working at Shencottah Railway Station. Thereafter, he was removed from service with effect from 1-4-1976. He challenged the said order of removal by way of a civil suit in O.S. No. 3055 of 1977 on the file of the 11th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, seeking a declaration that the order of removal was null and void. He also prayed for a consequential relief that he should be deemed to be continued in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. G. Ramaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: [1990]185ITR286(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. Under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following common question of law for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amendment provisions of section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act would not be applicable to the partitions made on February 9, 1979, in relation to the assessment year 1979-80 ?' 2. The question is whether the amended provisions of section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act would be applicable in respect of the partition dated February 9, 1979, in relation to the assessment year 1979-80. Though in the earlier portion of section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act, partial partitions, which have taken place after December 31, 1978, would also be included, yet, by reason of the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes No. 281 of 1980 (See [1981] 131 ITR 4, it had been clarified that even though section 20A...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. G Ramaswamy and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)78CTR(Mad)16; [1990]185ITR285(Mad)
RATNAM J. - Under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following common question of law for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the amendment provisions of section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act would not be applicable to the partitions made on February 9, 1979, in relation to the assessment year 1979-80 ?'The question is whether the amended provisions of section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act would be applicable in respect of the partition dated February 9, 1979, in relation to the assessment year 1979-80. Though in the earlier portion of section 20A of the Wealth-tax Act, partial partitions, which have taken place after December 31, 1978, would also be included, yet, by reason of the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes No. 281 of 1980 (See [1981] 131 ITR 4, it had been clarified that even though section 20A of th...
Tag this Judgment!Thulasi Vs. Dhanalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ238
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in C.M.P. No. 2080 of 1987, allowing the petition and condoning the delay in filing the copy application and consequently the delay of 162 days in filing appeal.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision can be briefly stated as follows: The respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 5418 of 1984 for declaration and recovery of possession of the land from the revision petitioner. The said suit was dismissed on 31-10-1986. Hence the respondent filed a copy application on 13-11-1986 for the purpose of filing an appeal. Stamp papers wee called on 18-3-1987. Since the stamp papers were not furnished within the time, the copy application was struck off on 28-3-1987. Again the respondent filed another copy application on 28-3-1987 i.e., C.D. No. 8099 of 1987. The copies were made ready on 11-9-1987 and delivered on 14-9-1987. Thereafter the appea...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rajamani Vs. the Co-operative Sugars Ltd. by Its Secretary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ360
Bellie, J.1. Both the L.P.A. and the C.R.P. arising out of one suit they can be disposed of in one common judgment.2. The defendant is the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal and the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition. The plaintiff, the Co-operative Sugars Ltd., Chittur, filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,500. According to the plaintiff the defendant on 6.12.1969 agreed to supply 250 tons of sugarcane in the 1970 special season commencing from 15.6.1970 and again on 25.5.1970 he agreed to supply 100 tons of sugarcane in the 1970-71 main season commencing from October, 1970, to the plaintiff from the sugarcane grown in his fields. It was further agreed that in case the defendant fail to do so he would pay the plaintiff a penalty of Rs. 50 for every ton. The defendant failed to supply sugarcane as agreed and therefore he is liable to pay the plaintiff a total penalty of Rs. 17,500.3. The defendant denied that he entered into any agreement with the plaintiff as alle...
Tag this Judgment!C. Jose Ukkur Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad248
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows :--'... pleased to issue such appropriate writs, orders or directions as may be appropriate and in particular issue a writ of mandamus- (a) directing the respondents to instal the telephone allotted to the petitioner in the residence of his Secretary at No. 1, Antony Street. East Tambaram, Madras 59: (b) awarding the costsof this petition and Notice of motion has been ordered by Siva-subramaniam. J. on 21-11-1988.2. The counsel for the department has filed the counter affidavit for which the petitioner has also filed a reply.3. After hearing both sides. I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into the legal contentions raised by the petitioner on the facts and circumstances of this case.4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Telephones Department contends that a phone cannot be installed in the address of the Secretary where a person asked for a phone in his name. I have gone through the relevant rules. The learned counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!The Indian Bank, Madras Vs. S. Krishnaswamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad115
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The defendants appeal from a common Judgment of Shanmukham, J., in C.S. Nos. 31 and 33 of 1974.2. Originally these suits were instituted inthe City Civil Court, Madras, and were transferred to this Court. C.S. No. 31 of 1974 is a suit for a declaration that the debt or debts in respect of which the respondents/plaintiffs stood liable as sureties or otherwise in respect of the loan to Shree Bharathy Mills Limited, Pondicherry, for the appellant defendant is are no longer in existence, for a declaration that the arrangement between the appellant defendant and the principal debtor, Shree Bharathy Mills Ltd. represented by its Authorised Controller on 7-1-1967 and 23-1-1967 discharged the respondents/plaintiffs from all or any liability to the appellant/defendant bank as it, extinguished the original debt in respect of which the respondents/plaintiffs undertook liability whether as sureties or otherwise, and for a direction to the appellant/defendant bank to hando...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »