Chennai Court August 1990 Judgments
Air Lanka Ltd. Vs. John William Nathan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR953]; (1991)ILLJ291Mad; (1991)IIMLJ304
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Award dated 25th June 1985 passed by the second respondent in I.D. No. 41 of 1984 on his file. 2. The petitioner is a company registered as Air Lanka Ltd., and is an International Carrier of the Government of Sri Lanka. It operates in India as a result of agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of India through International airports of Madras, Bombay, Trivandrum and Tiruchy in India. It has an office in the City of Madras. The first respondent was employed as an Office Helper in the Madras Office with effect from 15th October 1979. On 16th October 1981, the first respondent was found removing an Air Travel Bag from the Manager's Office without any permission. When this was noticed, the first respondent attempted to hide the Air Travel Bag and when questioned about the same, the first respondent attempted guilt and submitted that he would not commit such offence ...
Tag this Judgment!Air Lanka Limited Represented by Its Manager Vs. John William Nathan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ304
ORDERGovindasamy, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the Award dated 25.6.1985 passed by the second respondent in I.D. No. 41 of 1984 on his file.2. The petitioner is a company registered as Air-Lanka Ltd., and is an International Carrier of the Government of Sri Lanka. It operates in India as a result of agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Government of India through International Airports' of Madras, Bombay, Trivandrum and Tiruchi in India. It has an office in the City of Madras. The first respondent was employed as an Office Helper in the madras Office with effect from 15.10.1979. On 16.10.1984, the first respondent was found removing an Air Travel Bag from the manager's Office without any permission. When this was noticed, the first respondent attempted to hide the Air Travel Bag and when questioned about the same, the first respondent admitted his guilt and submitted that he would not commit such offence a...
Tag this Judgment!T. Anandavalli Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1990
Reported in: [1992]197ITR138(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In these tax cases under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), at the instance of the assessee, the following common question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 ?'2. The Tribunal has found that the assessee was a partner of a firm and the firm carried on business only in Malaysia. In other words, though the partners were resident in India, the firm was a non-resident firm and it did not export any goods from India. Nor did the partners export any goods on behalf of the firm. On the facts so found, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act. This view of the Tribunal is fully supported by the de...
Tag this Judgment!Amrutanjan Limited Vs. AshwIn Fine Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals, Kash ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Mad277
ORDER1. The suit is tried for the limited aspect of deciding as to whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit or not, as a preliminary issue, covered under Issue No. f as settled for the purpose of trial.2. For this limited purpose, the averments made in the plaint arc as follows, which are extracted for purposes of appreciation of the above issue. The plaintiffs, a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and having their registered office atNo. 14/15, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Madras-4, being the proprietor of the trade mark concerned in the suit, started about eighty years ago in manufacturing and selling, goods covered under the abovcsaid trade mark, 'AMRUTANJAN' got registered before the Trade Mark Registry situated at Haddows Road, Madras-6, under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, (43 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiffs have filed the suit for the reliefs of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the...
Tag this Judgment!Shital N. Shah and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)88CTR(Mad)103; [1991]188ITR376(Mad)
Arunachalam, J.1. The petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 10575 of 1986, 10577 of 1986 and 10579 of 1986 are the same. These petitioners are accused Nos. 2 to 7 in C. C. Nos. 968 of 1986, 969 of 1986 and 960 of 1986, pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. II), Egmore, Madras. The first four petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10581 of 1986 are petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 in the other three petitioners. The fifth petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10581 of 1986 is not concerned with the other calendar cases. The petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10581 of 1986 are the accused in C. C. No. 1971 of 1986 pending on the file of the same magistrate. 2. The petitioners in each one of these petitions are being prosecuted at the instance of the respondent who is the Income-tax Officer, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 276B read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Arulmighu Devanatha Swami Devasthanam, Represented by Its Executive Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)189MLJ1
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These six writ appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.1617 and 1789 of 1981. The parties are the one and the same in both the writ petitions and it will be convenient for us if we refer to the parties as per their array in the writ petitions. Lands in four survey numbers in Koothapakka Village, Cuddalore Taluk, of the total extent of 5.77 acres were the subject-matter of acquisition in April, 1970 for the purpose of construction of buildings for the Government Basic Training School for Women at Thiruppapuliyur. Of the four Survey numbers, R.S. No. 16/1 of an extent of 3.40 acres belonged to the third respondent: R.S. No. 16/2 of an extent of 1.60 acres belonged to respondents 4 and 5; R.S. No. 16/3 of an extent of 0.64 cents belonged to one T.M. Krishnaswami Pillai and R.S. No. 16/4 of an extent of 0.13 cents belonged to the 7th respondent. Pursuant to acquisition, possession was handed over to the Education Department...
Tag this Judgment!St. Aleysius Angle Indian Higher Secondary School Vs. Association for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ404
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in I.A. No. 8009 of 1990 directing the refund of school fees collected by the petitioner herein from the students of the Institution on the basis of enhancement of which the parents' of the students were given notice by circular dated 19.12.1989. Several students numbering about 1200, according to petitioner's counsel, paid enhanced fee and only about 200 students did not pay the enhanced fee. The suit, out of which this revision arises, has been filed by the respondent herein for a declaration that the demand for enhancement of tuition fees as per circular dt. 19.12.1989 issued by the defendant to the parents of the students is illegal and invalid and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demanding enhanced tuition fees than the one prevailing as on 1.6.90. By order dated 16.3.1990 in I.A.No. 2454 of 1990, the 4th Assistant Judge gra...
Tag this Judgment!C. Ravi Vs. A. Janardhanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ537
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is for dispensing with the production of the fair order dated 24.7.1990 in R.P.No.75 of 1989 in O.S. No.254 of 1987 on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri, which is sought to be revised in the above civil revision petition. The said C.R.P. is also posted before me along with the said civil miscellaneous petition, for admission. When the said Civil Miscellaneous Petition and the Civil Revision Petition originally came up before me for admission on 9.8.1990, I posed the question to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, whether the production of fair order could be dispensed with at all by the court and whether arid the civil Revision petition is validly presented without the production of certified copy of the fair order. Then I also expressed that the affidavit in support of the petition for dispensing with did not give necessary particulars. Then the learned Counsel for the petitioner took time for filing an additional affidavit. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shantha V. Pai Vs. Vasanth Builders, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ3026
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. This appeal under section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), clause 15 of the Letters Patent and Rule 10 of the High, Court Rules is directed against the order of dismissal of the Contempt Application No. 170 of 1989 by the learned trial Judge, vide order dated 23rd September, 1989. It was held that the appellant had failed to establish that the respondent had violated any order of the Court. A short resume of the facts lending to the filing of Contempt Application No. 170 of 1989 and the present appeal need a notice at this stage. 2. The appellant filed W.P. No. 4835 of 1989 and in W.M.P. No. 7079 of 1989 filed therewith, sought an interim injunction restraining the respondent herein inter alia from carrying on any building or construction work over the site pending disposal of the Writ Petition. On 4th April, 1989, an interim injunction was issued along with notice of the petition to the opposite side. According to ...
Tag this Judgment!Velimalai Rubber Co. Ltd Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Mad)242; [1991]188ITR262(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. In all these tax revision cases arising out of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), common questions of law arise for consideration and the assessee is also the same and common arguments were addressed. Hence, all these tax cases are disposed of by this common order. 2. The points that arise for consideration in all these cases are : (1) whether the subsidy received from the Rubber Board is to be treated as revenue derived from land and, as such, exigible to agricultural income tax, as held by the Tribunal, or, is not to be treated as agricultural income derived from the land but to be treated as a capital receipt, and as such not exigible to agricultural income-tax, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner; and (2) whether the expenditure incurred on ammonia gas for conservation of latex is to be allowed to the full extent or to be restricted with reference to the income derived in a particular accounting year? 3...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »