Chennai Court October 1997 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.
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Narayan Kumar Jain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: 2003(162)ELT97(Mad)
D. Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed by the authorities of the Union of India, who were respondents in W.P. No. 3075 of 1996 against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 7-3-1997 in W.P. No. 3075 of 1996, whereunder the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the respondents herein seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertainingto the order of the second appellant in Original No. 2/AC/1996, dated 31-1-1996 and consequently, direct second appellant-second respondent to restore Sony television set 29' made in Japan with the other goods seized by the customs officers from the shop of the father of the appellants-respondents at Ahmedabad on 15-11-1995 as per the list of items seized specified as Ex. C in the affidavit of the writ petitioners respondents herein filed in support of the writ petition, to the writ petitioner No. 1, at Madras or writ petitioner No. 2 at Ahmedabad, or in t...
Periyathayee Vs. the Special Tahsildar (La) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ265
J. Kanakaraj, J.1. All these writ appeals and the sole Writ Petition No. 12767 of 1986 challenge the validity of certain acquisition proceedings initiated at the instance of the Salem Housing Unit of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Though the acquisition is in respect of one and the same scheme, different notifications were issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. We do not propose to refer to the notifications because the learned single Judge has adverted to each of the notifications. Similarly we do not propose to refer to the facts of each writ petition, because the learned single Judge has referred to the facts of the cases. We will, however, refer to certain facts as and when necessary where some specific points have been raised apart from the general submissions made against the validity of the acquisition proceedings.2. We will however, refer to the facts of one case for the sake of understanding the scope of the arguments. In W.P.No. 4781 of 1985, the lands bearing ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Jayalakshmi Doraiswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR202(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following questions of law for the assessment year 1971-72 under section 26(l) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the gift-tax assessment made in the assessee's case for the assessment year 1971-72 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,' the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that the consideration for the transfer is adequate is based on valid and relevant materials and a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case 2. The assessee is assessed as an individual. The original assessment for the assessment year 1971-72 was completed by the Gift-tax Officer. Later on, on the basis of the information collected, th...
Ravikumar Distilleries Ltd. Vs. the Union of India, Represented by Uni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ222
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the necessary clearance/licence to enable the petitioner to commence the production of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in its-factory premises at Kuppam village, Mannadipet Commune Panchayat.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated here-under:The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 19.56. The object of the company is to carry on the business of distillers, brewers and other allied activities connected there-with. It is contended that the petitioner applied for the grant of a licence for setting up of a blending and bottling unit at Pondicherry for manufacturing Indian Made Foreign Liquors (IMFL) before the Excise Department, Pondicherry. The Excise Department requested the petitioner to approach the Industries Department for guidance by their letter dated 3.1.1995, who in turn requested the petitioner to approach the M...
A.G. Pasupathy Vs. Mohamed Ismail
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ746
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is by the tenant in R. CO.P. No. 3678 of 1988, on the file of XI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras.2. Relevant facts that are necessary for the proper disposal of the revision may be summarised as follows:Petitioner herein is a tenant of the building belonging to the respondent. R. CO.P. No. 3678 of 1988 was filed for eviction. Petitioner herein was set ex parte on 27.7.1989, and subsequently an ex parte order of eviction was also passed on 16.8.1989.3. Petitioner herein filed M.P. No. 265 of 1990, to set aside the ex parte order of eviction, and the same was allowed as per order dated 31.10.1990. Petitioner thereafter filed a counter in the main petition on 11.12.1990. The main eviction petition itself was posted to 3.1.1991 for enquiry. The matter was again adjourned to 10.1.1991, and since there was no representation on behalf of the respondent, the eviction petition itself was dism...
English Electric Co. of India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Mad)183
ORDERRENGASAMY, J. :These writs of certiorari have been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings in CC Nos. 670/88. 152/89 and 133/89 on the file of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences). WP 12715/88 has been filed by the company viz. English Electric Company of India Ltd. whereas WP 12716 to 12718 of 1988 have been filed by the directors of the company in their individual capacity all for the same purpose of quashing the CC No. 670/88 on the file of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences). The other two writ petitions have been filed by the company to quash the subsequent criminal proceedings CC 152/89 and CC 133/89 initiated by the respondents.2. In the affidavit of the petitioners, the allegations are that they have been wrongly prosecuted by the respondents before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate without any basis and without following the procedures established by law and the assessment lev...
Chittiraivel Nadar and Others Vs. Mookandi Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC365
ORDER1. The respondent was owner of property in question towards 1/2 share. Towards arrears of tax his 1/2 share was brought for sale under the Revenue Recovery Act. The first petitioner purchased half share in the property in question in the said proceedings. On 26.11.1980 he was issued sale certificate. He sold the same on 25.11.1990 to the second petitioner for a sum of Rs. 65,000. On the basis of the sale certificate, the petitioners filed E.P.No.64 of 1991 on (he file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, to execute the same, relying on Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The trial court rejected the petition on the ground that under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, the petition ought to have been filed within one year from the date of purchase. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above Revision. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act and submitted that the first petitioner...
North Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR480(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs. 1,87,544 representing reserve for deficit stock on account of handling was includible in the income of the society ?' 2. The assessee is a co-operative and marketing society and the assessment year concerning the tax case reference is the assessment year 1971-72 and the relevant accounting year is the year ending with June 30, 1970. In computing its income for the said assessment year 1971-72, the Income-tax Officer made the following addition towards the reserve for deficit stock of Rs. 1,87,544. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the same for the reasons stated in the earlier assessment years. The case of the assessee before the Income-tax Officer was that the stocks were damaged and since they would not be so...
M. Shanmughasundaram Vs. N.T.P. Subburaya Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ626
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsel, the revision is taken up for final disposal. 2. The revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority in I.A. No. 100 of 1994 in R.C.A. No. 7 of 1993 wherein additional evidence has been permitted. The only objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in M. Ayyasami v. S.P. Ganesan (1994) 2 1 W. 376, the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence cannot be disposed of independently and the said application has to be taken up along with the appeal. The lower court is not correct in disposing of the application independently. In fact the objection is well founded. The Division Bench, in Ayyaswami's case has held as follows:It is the settled position of law that an application filed in the appeal for permission to adduce additional evidence has to be considered along wi...
Urmila Chandak and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1997
Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Mad)758
ORDERABDUL RAZACK, J.M. :These appellants assail different orders passed by the AO namely, the Asstt. CIT, Company Circle I (Inv.), Madras, on 29th August, 1996 for the block period 1986-87 to 1995-96 under s. 158BC r/w s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961.2. Shri Ashok Kumbhat, Chartered Accountant appeared for all the above mentioned appellants and it was submitted by him that the facts in all these appeals are similar and identical and therefore whatever decision is given in the case of the first appellant namely Smt. Urmila Chandak, the same will be applicable to the remaining appellants herein. This was confirmed from the Departmental Representative Shri K. Satyanarayanana who also affirmed and agreed with the submissions made by Shri Kumbhat. We are therefore narrating the facts which are present in the case of Urmila Chandak (Appellant No. 1) herein since the facts are common in the remaining cases of the other appellants. We also wish to make it clear that whatever decision we will be...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »