Chennai Court January 1990 Judgments
Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD444(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri R. Rangayya, Accountant Member - This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Asst. year 1981-82. The assessee is a limited company working as Cold Roll Mill. Included in its plant and machinery are several items of machinery; which the assessee claimed to be automatic, semi-automatic or precision machine tools, for which it is entitled to higher depreciation at the rate of 15%. For the Asst. year 1981-82, the ITO accepted the assessees contention and allowed depreciation and extra shift allowance on the above items of machinery @ 15%. The Commissioner, after calling for the records and examining the same, opined that the action of the ITO in allowing higher depreciation Tribunal 15% on the above items of machinery is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He found that the Income-tax Officer had allowed depreciation at a higher rate of 15% without ascert...
Tag this Judgment!Noorul Islam Education Trust, Nagercoil Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad141
ORDER1. Both the writ petitions are between the same parties. While the former was filed for issue of Mandamus directing Respondents 1 and 2 to grant immediate affiliation to the petitioner for the proposed self financing Engineering College at Thiruvithancode, Kaikulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, the latter is for issue of certiorarificd Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent, quashing the resolution of the Syndicate dated 18-10-1989 and for directing the second respondent quashing the resolution of the Syndicate, dated 18-10-1989 and for directing the second respondent to grant affiliation to the petitioner's institution for the Academic Year 1989-90. The first of the writ petitions was filed on 13-11-1989 and notice of motion was ordered on 15-11-1989. The petitioner received on 17-11-1989 a communication from the second respondent in No. CD. 1/Fresh. Affln./ EC/89-90 dated 9-11-1989 informing the petitioner of theresolution passed by the Syndicate at its meeting...
Tag this Judgment!R. Manohar Vs. the Deputy Director, Export Inspection Agency and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ155
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:.to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of the writ directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in the Group D Cadre post with effect from 2.1.1985 the date of entering into the services of the respondents with all monetary and attendant benefits accrued thereon.... 2. The petitioner herein received a communication from the second respondent dated 2.11.1983, calling upon him to appear for an interview on 28.11.1983 for Group D post before the first respondent and the petitioner herein appeared before the first respondent on the appointed day. Again, the petitioner was asked to fill up certain forms, by a communication sent by the second respondent herein dated 4.8.1984. The petitioner duly filled up those forms and returned them. Thereafter, by communication dated 1.1.1985 sent by the first respondent, the petitioner was asked to meet ...
Tag this Judgment!Noorul Islam Education Trust Rep. by Its Chairman, Majeed Khan Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ105
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Both the writ petitions are between the same parties. While the former was filed for issue of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to grant immediate affiliation to the petitioner for the proposed self financing Engineering College at Thiruvithancode, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, the latter is for issue of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent, quashing the resolution of the Syndicate dated 18.10.1989 and for directing the second respondent to grant affiliation to the petitioner's institution for the Academic Year 1989-90. The first of the writ petitions was filed on 13.11.1989 and notice of motion was ordered on 15.11.1989. The petitioner received on 17.11.1989 a communication from the second respondent in No. CD. 1/ Fresh.Affln./EC/89-90 dated 9-11-1989 informing the petitioner of the resolution passed by the Syndicate at its meeting held on 18.10.1989 that fresh affiliation could not be granted until adequate infras...
Tag this Judgment!N. Vijaya Kumar. Vs. the Municipal Council and ors., by Its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ409
ORDERBakthavatsalam J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of mandamus to direct the respondents to restore the petitioner to the office of Councillorship, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi, pursuant to the powers vested in them under Section 50(4) of the Tamil Nadu Municipality Act and as prayed for in his letter dated 2.1.1989.2. It is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner was duly elected as Council or from the 11th Ward of the Pollachi Municipal Town and was functioning from 3.3.1986. It is admitted that the petitioner did not attend the meetings of the council held on 31.8.1988, 26.10.1988 and 21.12.1988. By letter dated 28.12.1988, the petitioner was informed that by reason of non-attendance of the meetings he has incurred disqualification under Section 50(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. It seems that on 2.1.1989 the petitioner gave a reply stating that due to his sickness he could not attend the meetings and also prayed for restorati...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Krishna Iyer Vs. C. Royappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ382
ORDERRamalingam, J.1. The first respondent herein filed an application in Form I under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, Act 40 of 1971, hereinafter referred to as the Act, claiming Kudiyiruppu patta for an extent of 17' by 40' in Door No. 16, T.S. No. 1969, Thoppu Street, Kumbakonam Town. It is not in dispute that the house in question is part of a row of three houses and it being the middle portion. The first respondent was in occupation of this portion of the row houses, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. Claiming to be an agriculturist entitled to Kudiyiruppu patta, he gave evidence to the effect that he is occupying the petition mentioned house owned by the respondent (Petitioner herein) on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-, excluding electricity charges. The Authorised Officer, by its order dated 2-1-1981, rejected this application of the first respondent herein observing that since it is admitted on both sides that the petition mentione...
Tag this Judgment!K. Natarajan Alias Murugan and Another Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ756
1. These two writ petitions have been filed for issue of writ of habeas corpus to quash the orders of detention passed in G.O. No. SR/I/1036-7/87 dated 8-12-1987 and G.O. No. SR/I/1036-8/87 dated 8-12-1987 by the first respondent and to direct, the respondents to set the detenus, N. Natarajan alias Murugan and E. Mani, now detained in the Central Prison, Madras at liberty.2. The facts leading to the passing of the said orders of detention are as follows :- On 13-4-1987, on the basis of information received from the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, the Customs Officers stopped the lorry TMA 4767 at Konalai on the Trichy Madras Trunk Road and found five occupants in the cabin. The persons admitted their name as follows :-1. C. Mani, Taxi Driver.2. M. Vijayakumar, Lorry Driver.3. P. Kothandam, Lorry Driver.4. N. Lakshmanan, Lorry Cleaner.5. A. V. Srinivasan, Lorry Cleaner.3. On examining the lorry, 21 gunny bags in wet condition were found beneath the Fertilizer bags which were covere...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B. Ghevarchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: [1990]186ITR648(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. At the request of the Revenue as well as the assessee to draw up a statement of the case and refer certain questions of law that are said to arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal'), for the opinion of this court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal, by its order dated February 26, 1979, referred the following two questions : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax liability attributable to the concealed income of Rs. 1,90,000 has to be deducted for the purpose of levy of penalty under Section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1966-67 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for concealment of income had become final ?' 2. At the outset, we may mention that the respondent/assessee, though served with notice, has not tak...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Vs. K. Mohamed Ansar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ342
JUDGEMENTThanikkachalam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree rendered in A.S. No. 57 of 1980 by the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Madras on 22.12.80, which in turn arises out of the Judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 1476 of 1976 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Madras on 16.6.1979. The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The first respondent is the father of the Plaintiff/Appellant. Second Defendant/Second respondent is the Secretary of the Mosque. Third Defendant/third Respondent is the Mosque, and 4th Defendant/4th Respondent is the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the release deed dated 3.6.1970 executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant is illegal and not binding on him and for possession of the suit property from defendants 2 and 3.2. According to the Plaintiff/Appellant, the suit property which is the superstructure bearing Door No. 15, Velayutham Lane,...
Tag this Judgment!Murugan Alias Chitravel Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1990
Reported in: 1992CriLJ930
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 341 of 1983 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows : PW 2 Arasamuthu along with his wife Annammal and minor Arumugam are residing in Ramanujam Pudhu Theru in Nambi Thope attached to Tirukurungudi. The deceased Gnanaraj is the husband of PW 2's wife's sister. PW 1 is the father of the deceased. PW 3 is the maternal uncle of the deceased, who is living opposite to the house of PW 2. 3. About a month prior to the occurrence, PW 6 Sekar came to the house of PW 2 and was assisting PW 2 in his work. During that time, the appellant used to visit his uncle PW 3's house, and therefore, they became friends. Ten days before the occurrence, PW 6 and the appellant were apprehended by Nanguneri police on suspicion. How...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »