Chennai Court November 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.
Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam Represented by Anoor Jagadeesan, President V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ548
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, a political party in the State, prays for issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to G.O. Ms. No. 1291, Public Department, dated 18.10.1997 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.2. The petitioner, Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, rep-resented by its President Anoor Jagadeesan, has filed the present writ petition; The petitioner in the affida-vit filed in support of the writ petition states that he is the President of the Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam. According to the petitioner, Periyar E.V. Ramaswami founded the self-respect movement during the year 1925 as a revolt against the Brahmin imperialism and for the upliftment of the Non-Brahmin Community. This movement awakened Non-Brahmin and certain safeguards were brought by the State Government. According to the petitioner, the present ruling D.M.K. party is off-spring of the Periyar's Self Respect Movement.3. It is stated that the first respondent had appointed the ...
Padmanabhan and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ601
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The Unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No. 23 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Pondicherry are the appellants in the above appeal.2. The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint is briefly stated herein:They filed the said suit to set aside the notice dated 12.1.1982 issued by the second defendant expressing intendment to take possession of the suit property on 18.1.1982 and also to set aside the Notification issued by the second respondent under the authority of the first respondent issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the award passed by the second respondent is invalid and null and void It is further contended that a perusal of Section 4(1) notification shows that it was for the purpose of benefitting a section of the public by way of allotment of house sites to them. The plaintiffs submitted their objections and had also brought to the notice of the authority that they had no other property than the proposed one for acquisition. The...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madurai District Co-operatm Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1997
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)348
N. V. BALASUBRAMANLAM, J.The Tribunal, Madras, has referred the following common question of law for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that (i) interest on securities (ii) income from house property, (iii) subsidy from the Government, (iv) interest from other co-operative institutions and banks and (v) dividends received by the assessee was business income entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessment years involved in the above tax cases reference are the years 1978-79 and 1979-80. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members. The issue that arises in the above two tax cases are whether the following income can be treated as business income assessable under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961'1. Interest on securities;2. I...
John Clarance Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Ce ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC446
ORDER1. Heard both the parties.2. The above revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.11.95 in C.A.NO. 20 of 1993 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, confirming the order of conviction dated 11.3.1993 in C.C.No.1104 of 1993 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-2, Tirunelveli, convicting the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 409, I.P.C. sentencing for one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000 in default of which, three months rigorous imprisonment.3. The petitioner was facing a trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate-2, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.104 of 1993 for an offence punishable under Section 409 I.P.C. with regard to an occurence said to have taken place during the inspection held at 2.30 p.m. on 2.7.88 in Udayamarthandam Post Office, during which more than worth of Rs.12,985.45 entrusted to the petitioner were found in shortage.4. Eight witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.2 were examined, 30 documents were marked, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakhraj and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR418(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian. J. 1. In pursuance of the direction of this court in T. C. P. Nos. 118 and 119 of 1979, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has referred the following common question of law for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1963-64 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1960-61 especially when the assessment of the income of the Bombay firm in the hands of the assessee has not reached finality ?' 2. The assessee, Lekhraj and Sons, is a firm carrying on business at Madras. The Income-tax Officer during the course of the assessment for the assessment year 1960-61 'noticed that the purchases in Bombay were claimed to have been made through a firm styled Ramchand and Co., Bombay, while the assessee paid certain amount of commission and interest to this concern. The Income-tax O...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K. Sitalakshmi (Minor)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR500(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madurai, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'D', has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1979-80 under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for our consideration : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital of the Baby Sitalakshmi Trust should not be included in the net wealth of the assessee minor ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and she is the beneficiary of a trust known as 'Baby Sitalakshmi Trust'. As per the terms of the trust, the income was to be accumulated year after year and should be handed over to the beneficiary only on her attaining the age of 18. She became a major only in June, 1983. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the annual accretion to the trust cannot be treated as the income of the assessee, and the amount standing to th...
Southern Roadways Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)146CTR(Mad)550
ORDERN.V. Balasubramaniam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal, has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the taking over of the bus transport undertaking by the Government of Tamilnadu from the assessee under the Tamilnadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (Act 37 of 1971) amounted to a 'Compulsory Acquisition' as defined in Art. 31(2A) of the Constitution thus attracting the provisions of s. 41(2) and s. 45 of the IT Act 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the acquisition of stage carriages of the assessee under s. 3 of the Tamilnadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1971 amounted to the assets of the assessee being sold within the meaning of ss. 32 and 41 of the IT Act or transfer within the meaning of s. 2(47) of the Act 3. Whether, in the facts and circums...
P.N.A. Hyder Ali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC486
ORDER1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu. He has challenged the order of detention, dated 7.7.1995, passed by Respondent No. 1, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), hereinafter referred to as the 'Cofeposa' Act, in short.2. The facts which led to the detention of the detenu are; that on 8.5.95 at about 10.00 hours, one Mrs. Mohamed Anwar Samsum Nihara, holder of Sri Lankan Passport No. K. 0381763 dated 5.8.91 issued at Colombo who was a passenger bound for Colombo by INdian airlines Flight No. IC 573 was intercepted by the Customs Officer, after clearance through Immigration and Customs. On suspicion that she might be carrying contraband or currency concealed in her baggage, Mrs. Nihara identified one Olive green colour Zipper bag bearing Tag No. IC 0366123 and one original Cardboard Carton of Jaipan Mixer and Grinder bearing Tag No. IC 0366124 and one Ju...
S.M. Mohamed Meera Sha, Partner, Golden Oils Vs. E. Hyder Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC631; (1998)IMLJ765
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The tenant who suffered eviction before the authorities below has filed the above revision.2. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 1361 of 1990 on the file of the learned Rent controller/XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras Under Sections 10(2)(ii)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of Act 18 of 1960. According to the landlord, the tenant had constructed a pucca wall from floor to ceiling level in the central hall of the two floors in between two pillars, in the building in question thereby the central hall had been partitioned into two portions. He had put up a door way in the said wall. Apart from that he had raised a wall in the open terrace and covered the same with asbestos sheet thereby converting the open terrace into a constructed portion. According to the landlord the said additions and alterations are unauthorised and without any permission. Since the building is very old and aged one it would not bear any extra weight that may be put up by the tenant. The said const...
Venkatachalam Vs. State Rep., by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3189
ORDER1. This Revision case has been filed by the revision petitioner who was accused in C.C. No. 400 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Chengalpattu and appellant in C.A. No. 53 of 1994 on the file of the Sessions Judge Chengalpattu challenging the findings of conviction passed by both the Courts below. 2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kancheppuram has filed a charge-sheet against the accused who is the revision petitioner herein alleging that on 4/9/1984, he passed a cheque for Rs. 7,500/- dated 1-9-1984 to one T. Ashok Kumar and that on 15-8-1985 he passed another cheque for Rs. 10,000/- to the said Ashok Kumar and both the cheques have been bounced and thereby the accused was liable under Section 430(ii), IPC. 3. The Trial Court on the culmination of trial found the accused guilty under Section 430, IPC convicted and sentence to undergo RI for three months and to pay of fine of Rs. 500/- for each count of said offence. On appeal, the learned Ses...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »