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.
State of Tamilnadu (by Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax) Vs. V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR412(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. The above-referred to five tax case revisions are by the Revenue under section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, and they are against the common order dated January 10, 1992, in the corresponding five appeals by the assessee-respondent before the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of five assessment years 1986-87 to 1990-91. The said order allowed all the said appeals. 2. Only one common question is involved in all the cases, viz., whether the income assessed to tax by the original assessing authority and confirmed by the first appellate authority to the extent of Rs. 4,32,000 in each of the abovesaid five years at the rate of Rs. 36,000 per month received by the assessee as rent in leasing out its land of 53 acres to its sister concern, V. G. P. Golden Beach Resort Ltd., for the latter carrying on the business of developing the said lands as a beach resort for tourists, is 'agricultural income' assessable to tax under the abov...
R. Krishnaswamy Vs. N. Arumugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ122
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Sections 10(3)(c) and 14(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1976, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The landlord purchased the petition premises along with the downstair portion from one Ramasubramania Iyer on 6.5.1982. The tenant is in occupation of the upstair portion and the staircase. The tenant was in the petition premises even prior to the purchase of the premises by the landlord. In the downstair portion the landlord is conducting a general merchant shop. The tenant is doing business as a newspaper agent. According to the landlord, the portion under his occupation is not sufficient for his business. Hence, he required the portion under the occupation of the tenant bona fide by way of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. According to the landlord, the petition premises required extensive repairs...
M. Devan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ214
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing it was represented on behalf of learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that a letter has been received by them from the respondent this morning to the effect that their services as counsel for the respondent have been terminated. The letter has been produced before me. I find that according to the letter a new panel of advocates has been prepared and the present advocates on record have been requested to hand over the records in all the pending cases to the respondent so that they could entrust the same to the new advocates. Hence learned Counsel expressed his dilemma in continuing with the arguments in the case. This writ petition was taken up for hearing on 11.8.1992. It was part-heard on that day and I posted it to 17.8.1992. It could not be heard yesterday and it was adjourned to this date. As this matter is part-heard, the letter of the respondent will not certainly prevent the counsel on record from conti...
Tvl. Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. Tvl. Flower Transports (P) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ343
ORDERM. Srinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is a State Transport Undertaking operating number of stage carriage services in the entire Madurai District and also on the adjoining inter-district and inter-State routes. The first respondent is a stage carriage operator, operating on the Srivilliputhur Town Service route between Srivilliputhur and Puthur (via.) Rajapa-layam, Seithur, Muhavoor and Dhalavoipuram. It made an application for variation of permit conditions involving1) conversion of the route from town service into mofussil service;2) extension of route from Srivilliputhur to Sivakasi by means of 12 singles; and3) reduction of:(a) 10 singles from Rajapalayam to Dhalavoipuram; and(b) 6 singles from Dhalavoipuram to Puthur.The Regional Transport Authority/Second respondent rejected the application holding that the advantage of the proposal is outweighed by greater disadvantages and that the application is not in public interest. An appeal was preferred by the first respondent to the t...
M. Parasivam Asari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1992
Reported in: 1993(43)ECC76
ORDERLakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both parties the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing. I have heard Mr. Thangapandian, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P. Venkatasubramaniam, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. In my opinion the matter is covered by the decision in the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reported in Union of India v. Darshan Singh . In view of the above decision, the above writ petition is allowed. No costs.3. Mr. P. Venkatasubramaniam however, contends that the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy under the Central Excise Law and he had rushed to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even presenting his case before the adjudicating authorities and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground. The writ petition has already been admitted by this Court as early as on 1.8.89 and the matter was pending in this Court for the last few year...
M. Shakur Chathik (Minor) Represented by His Father and Natural Guardi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ125
Mishra, J.1. Before we order whether to grant leave to the petitioner, who is claimed to be a third party to seek review of the judgment in W.P. Nos. 7656 etc. of 1992, we propose to hear the respondents and accordingly order notice of motion returnable in one week as to why leave be not granted. 2. It has been brought to our notice that a number of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 10337 etc. of 1992 have been ordered by a learned single Judge of this Court on 10.8.1992, it appears, for collaterally and indirectly seeking a review of our judgment in W.P. No. 7656 of 1992 and other analogous cases. Our attention has been drawn to the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.8.1992, who it seems, has not passed any positive order, but has stated as follows:A Division Bench of this Court in Rathnaswamy, Dr. V. v. Director of Medical Education 1986 Writ L.R. 207, considered the scope and effect of the conditions prescribed in the Prospectus and held,Then the question is what is the place and ...
R. Ashok and anr. Vs. R. Bhagavathi Ammal (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ492
Mishra, J.1. This appeal on behalf of the first defendant has arisen out of a proceeding in O.S. No. 115 of 1977 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil for declaration of the plaintiffs title and for recovery of possession of the suit property and other reliefs. The suit property originally belonged to one Andiappa Chettiar. He had two daughters Valliammal and Umayaparvathi. The plaintiff is the son of Valliammal, Umayaparvathi's husband Jeevarathinam Chettiar had two wives. The first wife is Umaayaparvathi and the second wife is Iyyin Pillai. The first defendant (appellant) is the son of the second defendant and the second defendant is the son through the abovesaid Iyyin Pillai, the second wife. Andiappa Chettiar executed a Will under which, on his demise, Umayaparvathy got a life estate over the suit property and the vested remainder was left with the plaintiff and his brother Rengaswami, who predeceased him. Umayaparvathi, adopted the first defendant as her son and execute...
Radhika Konel Parekh Vs. Konel Parekh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: AIR1993Mad90; I(1994)DMC598; (1993)IMLJ163
ORDERMishra, J.1. Respondent Konel Parekh and the appellant Radhika were married in accordance with Hindu rites on 1st of April, 1990 and a male child was born to them on 30th March, 1991, On 16-12-1991, however, Konel filed O.P. No. 694 of 1991 in this court seeking his appointment as the guardian of the son born on 30th March, 1991, named parthiv and also for other reliefs. He applied for a direction that he be given interim custody of Parthiv in Application No. 6404 of 1991 in the said petition, O.P. No.694 of 1991. Radhika, the appellant, responded to the notice stating inter alia that she had moved the family Court at Bombay seeking reliefs inter alia of divorce and for the interim custody of the minor child Parthiv, maintenance and restraint orders on 6-12-1991. The Family Court at Bombay on 11 -12-1991 by an order, restrained Konel from forcingly removing the child from her custody. She stated in her return that the order of restraint became necessary in view of the fact that th...
A. Kannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. (Represented by Commissioner of Agr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: [1993]201ITR205(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The petitioner in all the above three revision petitions is one and the same and the above three revisions have been filed since a common order in respect of the three assessment years, viz., 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, have been passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The revision petitioner was an assessee on the files of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer-II, Nagercoil, during the assessment years in question and the petitioner was permitted to compound the tax payable by him on payment of Rs. 3,731 for each of the above assessment years. The tax was determined by applying the provision for computation of 41.31 ordinary acres determined as equivalent to 80.06 standard acres. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax apparently on a report from the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax...
Tvl. Pattukkottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Tvl. V.K. Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1992
Reported in: (1993)1MLJ249
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is a State owned transport undertaking, operating stage carriage services in the entire North Arcot Ambedkar District/ Tiruvannamalai-Sambuvarayar District and also on the inter district and inter-state routes. The first respondent made an application for the grant of stage carriage permit before the second respondent in respect of the route Vellore to Alangayam, on 14.9.1989. The second respondent rejected the same as one not in consonance with public interest, by order dated 11.2.1991. In his order hestated that there was no representation from the public or any quarters that additional services had to be provided on the route in question and there were already adequate number of buses owned by the private operators and State Transport Undertakings on the route and the introduction of any additional, but facility would lead to unhealthy competition endangering public safety. It was also observed by him that the sector of the route in question, fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »