Chennai Court February 1990 Judgments
The Correspondent, Seaforth Aided Primary School Vs. the Chief Educati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ437
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The first two Writ Petitions are filed by the Correspondent of Seafordi Aided Primary School, Seaforth Estate, Nilgiris District. The third Writ Petition is by the Headmaster of the School who is impleaded as the third respondent in W.P.No. 15734 of 1989. The respondents in the first Writ Petition are the Chief Educational Officer, Nilgiris District, the District Educational Officer, Nilgiris District, and the Deputy Inspector of Schools Gudalur, Nilgiris District. The respondents in the second writ petition are the Government of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary, Education Department, the Chief Educational Officer, Nilgiris District and the Headmaster of the School. In the third Writ Petition, the Government, the Chief Educational Officer the District Educational Officer and the Secretary to the management and the Correspondent of the school are the four respondents.W.P.No. 10861 of 1987: The prayer in this writ petition by the management of the school is for i...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. S. M. Lakshmana Pillai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1990
Reported in: (1990)36TTJ(Mad)413
ORDER1. This appeal is by the revenue and is against the order of the A. A. C. cancelling a penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of Rs. 13,909. The A. A. C. has written an elaborate order setting out in detail the facts and the law on the point. It is, therefore, superfluous for me to dwell in detail since the reasoning of the A. A. C. could not be assailed with reference to any interpretation of statutory provisions or otherwise by any argument on behalf of the Revenue.2. Briefly put, the assessee sold jewellery as under :-15-2-1978 for Rs. 26,945 4-3-1978 for Rs. 30,656 8-3-1978 for Rs. 20,448 Rs. 78,049 The assessee made a fixed deposit with the State Bank of India, Tuticorin on 9-3-1978 vide FD No. 653499 of Rs. 1 lakh. Thus, more than the full consideration received was placed in a fixed deposit.3. In the return filed, capital gains were neither shown nor any capital gain was brought to tax in the assessment of the year 1978-79.4. In the next year, in the statement filed, the ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Jayappan Vs. First Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1990
Reported in: [1992]195ITR470(Mad)
Mrs. Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. These two revisions have been filed by the same accused facing trial in two cases filed by the Income-tax Department for the offence under the Income-tax Act. Crl. R. C. No. 314 of 1986 is against the order passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl. M. P. No. 404 of 1986 in C. C. No. 133 of 1983, while Crl. R. C. No. 315 of 1986 is against the order passed by the same Magistrate in Crl. M. P. No. 485 of 1986 in C. C. No. 134 of 1983. Both the miscellaneous petitions were filed by the prosecution under section 311, Crl. P. C., seeking to have six additional documents in the first case and one additional documents in the second case, filed by recalling P. W. 1. The offences in both the cases were under sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 and section 276(c) of the Income-tax Act for assessment orders for different assessment years. 2. On the prosecution filing the above petitions for additional evidence, the petitioner objected t...
Tag this Judgment!N. Durairajan Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1990
Reported in: (1990)IILLJ147Mad
A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. The only point of law which arises for consideration in this writ appeal directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 261 of 1980 decided on 11th January 1980, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is whether the appropriate Government was justified in declining to make a reference of an industrial dispute arising out of dismissal from service of the appellant herein. 2. The appellant, at the relevant time was working in the Lignite Project of the second respondent as Foreman Grade X (Electrical). He was at the time of his dismissal drawing more than Rs. 500 per month as his wages. It is not necessary for the purpose of deciding the question under consideration to recapitulate the facts leading to the dismissal of the appellant or the charges framed against him and we, therefore, refrain from doing so. 3. Consequent upon his dismissal, the appellant invoked the provisions of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›