Chennai Court August 1992 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.
The All India Amitabh Bachchan's Fans Association etc. Vs. the Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad108
ORDER1. By consent of all parties to these proceedings, the main writ petition itself was taken up for hearing.2. The President of the All India Amitabh Bachchan Fans Association is a practising advocate of this Court. He has filed the above writ petition for the following relief: To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in connection with G.O. Ms. No. 739, Public Works (HV2) Department, dated 20-5-1992 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct respondents 1 to 3 to grant permission to the petitioner Association to install life size bronze statue of the former Prime Minister of India, late Smt. Indira Gandhi, at the existing traffic Island at the junction of Anna Salai and Binny Club Road, opposite to Spencer, Madras, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.3. According to the writ petitioner, the petitioner Association has been serving the poor and down-trodden and propagating national Integration and...
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Karthikeyan Agencies Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ150
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by the fifth defendant in O.S. No. 143 of 1977, Sub Court, Salem, later transferred to the District Munsifs Court, Tiruchengode and renumbered as O.S. No. 867 of 1982, against the orders of the Courts below rejecting the application filed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 2372 of 1989 in O.S. No. 867 of 1982 praying that the exparte decree passed against it on 16.11.1989 should be set aside and the petitioner permitted to contest the suit. 2. Briefly stated, the circumstances giving rise to this civil revision petition are as follows : On 15.3.1977, the respondent herein instituted O.S. No. 143 of 1977, Sub Court, Salem (later O.S. No. 867 of 1982, District Munsifs Court, Tiruchengode), praying for the relief of declaration that the respondent was a dealer in petroleum products and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 in the suit from interfering with the carrying on of the business by the respondent. Aft...
V. Subramani Vs. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ451
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant whose I.A. No. 1263 of 1992 praying for trying issue No. 5 first as preliminary issue in the suit O.S. No. 406 of 1987 was dismissed, is the petitioner herein. The said issue no doubt raises the. question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court below to try the suit on the ground that the suit has been properly valued.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the court below has not given reasons for passing the abovesaid order of dismissal and that when the jurisdiction question is involved, Order 14, Rule 2(a) is attracted and the court below should have agreed to take up the abovesaid issue as a preliminary issue to be tried before the other issues are tried.3. But, first of all, it should be noted that the disposal of the said application did not involve any adjudication of any right or obligation of the parties in controversy and that hence the order cannot be treated as 'case decided' within the meaning of that term in Section 115, C...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raja Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: 1995CriLJ1660
Ratnam, J. 1. In these tax case petitions under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following common question of law for the opinion of this court. 'Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. We find from the order of the Tribunal that it was persuaded to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee on the footing that there had been errors in the totalling in the books of account of the assessee and after those mistakes were found out, the assessee had voluntarily informed the authorities and had also filed revised returns. In this background, the Tribunal took the view that there could not have been any concealment of the particulars of income by the assessee justifying the levy of penalty. The Tribunal was quite justified in the view it took, for, it is seen that the assessee had apprised th...
Prem Nazir (Deceased) (Through Legal Representatives Shah Nawaz and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: [1994]205ITR225(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In this tax case petition, at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a direction is sought to the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee cannot be considered as having established that the omission to show the amount of Rs. 30,000 in the first instance in filing the details of the receipts aggregating to about Rs. 6.66 lakhs was accidental (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that there was failure to produce the bank account when called for during the assessment stage and the same had to be taken into consideration in deciding the liability for penalty (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to call for the bank account wh...
M. Kasi Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: (1993)IILLJ911Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner joined the service of the respondent-bank as Clerk-cum-Godown Keepar in the year 1960. He was promoted as an Officer and posted to Chetpet Branch on April 15, 1972. He was subsequently transferred as acting Accountant to Thousand Lights Branch at Madras and later transferred to Pondicherry. He was promoted as Manager in the month of September 1975. In December 1979, one T. K. Subramaniam was posted as Branch Manager, Pondicherry and the petitioner was served with an order of transfer as Manager, Chengalpattu Branch during February 1980. Subsequently the order of transfer was cancelled and the petitioner was served with an order of suspension dated March 24, 1980. Certain allegations were set out in the order of suspension and it was stated that if proved they would constitute misconduct. A Memorandum of Articles of Charge dated February 24, 1982 was issued to the petitioner. It was alleged that he was guilty of misconduct under Regulations 3(1), 14(1) and 15(1) o...
Prem Nazir (Deceased) (Through Legal Representatives Shah Nawaz and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1992
Reported in: [1993]205ITR225(Mad)
RATNAM J. - In this tax case petition, at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a direction is sought to the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee cannot be considered as having established that the omission to show the amount of Rs. 30,000 in the first instance in filing the details of the receipts aggregating to about Rs. 6.66 lakhs was accidental ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that there was failure to produce the bank account when called for during the assessment stage and the same had to be taken into consideration in deciding the liability for penalty ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to call for the bank account which...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.J. Thomas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: [1995]211ITR897(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In this tax case petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law, for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 2(14), the Appellate Tribunal was right and had valid materials in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the lands sold by the assessee were agricultural lands and no capital gains arose on the sale of those lands 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the agricultural lands within the panchayat cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of section 2(14) is reasonable, supported by valid materials and sustainable in law ?' 2. With reference to the first question, we find that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal regarding the character of the land is factual. In arriving at the conclusion that the lands sold by the assess...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V. Pugalagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: [1995]212ITR156(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. In these tax case petitions 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 Tribunal was right in law in refusing to restore the valuation made by the Assessing officer but confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), despite the fact that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had overlooked the fact that, in the light of the will dated September 16, 1970, left by Dr. Vadamalayan, the interest of the assessee in the two properties under consideration was ownership of the properties subject only to the right of residence for his mother till her death ?' 2. Under the will dated September 16, 1970, of the father of the assessee, his mother had a life interest in certain properties and while computing the value of the interest of the remainderman, viz., the assessee, he took the ...
Kanthimathy Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Represented by A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: [1994]207ITR846(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The assessee is the petitioner in the above tax revision under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The Tribunal partly allowed the claims made before it by the assessee and not satisfied with the extent of relief granted by the Tribunal, the present revision has been filed. 2. In the revision before us, the petitioner has challenged the disallowance of the deduction claimed on the following categories of income and expenditure : (a) Car maintenance expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,056.89 (b) Rubber replanting subsidy to the tune of Rs. 59,928 (c) Maintenance of Bharat Medical Center to the tune of Rs. 9,474. 3. So far as the deduction claimed on account of car maintenance is concerned, the Tribunal itself found that already the authorities below allowed 75 per cent. of the expenses and that the disallowance of the balance of 25 per cent. is reasonable. 4. We have gone through the orders of the authorities below and we find that, in the absenc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »