Chennai Court December 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shankar Yarn Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR589(Mad)
M.S. Janarthanam, J.1. The Tribunal made a reference and the questions referred are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 is not valid 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's view that consequent on the death of one of the partners, Shri Shyamlal Trivedi on May 31, 1973, the firm got dissolved and the firm that came into existence subsequently is completely a new entity and that two separate assessments have to be made one in the case of the new firm, is sustainable in law ?' 2. Question No. 2 as framed above does not appear to be correct and there is the omission of the words 'and the other in the case of the old firm' in between the expressions 'new firm' and 'is sustainable in law' at the fag end of the question so framed. The omission has to be necessarily rectified and after rectification, question No. 2 is refra...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. P. Devasahayam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Mad)313; [1999]236ITR885(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. This is a reference to this Court under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (Act No. XXVII of 1957 - for short 'WTA'), and the questions referred to us are : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of WT Act; (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sweetmeats and biscuits do not retain the original properties of flours, water or sugar and that they go to compose the sweetmeats or biscuits 2. The assessee, Mr. P. Devasahayam, of Madurai is an individual carrying on business of sweetmeats and biscuits stall. In his wealth-tax assessment, a claim under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of WT Act was made on the ground that the investment in the business constitutes an 'industrial undertaking' and therefore, the investment in the said business is to be exempted from wealth-tax for the asst. yr. 1976-...
Dcp Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-1
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: 1998(103)ELT210(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to release and deliver goods viz. Synthetic PU Lining covered under Bills of Entry Nos. 50525 & 50523, dated 12-10-1995, Bills of Entry Nos. 52442, dated 26-10-1995, No. 62321, dated 20-12-1995, No. 5017, dated 30-1-1996, No. 16781, dated 8-4-1996, and No. 18072, dated 15-4-1996, pending adjudication of the DEEC Scheme licences, without insisting on payment of demurrage and container detention charges.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, sworn to by the Director of the Company, it is stated that the petitioner company has been primarily engaged in the business of imports since its inception. From the year 1992-93 onwards, the petitioner used to import consignments of PU Leather/PU Synthetic lining in full container loads at Chennai Port, and the same had been duly cleared in accordance with law of Customs Act under the DEEC scheme i.e., duty free without paying any customs duty f...
Ansari A.K. and anr. Vs. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ178Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since the petitioners in both these writs happened to be the retired officers of the Bharat Overseas Bank Limited, the first respondent in both these writ petitions and both the petitioners are aggrieved by the denial of pension by the respondent-Bank, both these writ petitions have been taken up together with the consent of both the parties and are disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner, A.K. Ansari, in W.P. No. 8191 of 1996 has filed in the said writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorarifed mandamus to quash the order Reference No. 24/133/96, dated May 7, 1996, and to direct the respondent to pay petitioners pension under the Bharat Overseas Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995, with effect from November 1, 1993.3. The petitioner, Mr. V.Raman, in W.P.No. 9235 of 1996 has filed the said writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the recor...
S. Thirumavalavan Vs. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ515
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the grand-father of the minor child, who was the respondent before the lower court.2. The respondent herein filed a petition for appointing him as guardian of the minor Rajeswari and for custody under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. His case was that the deceased Narpasalai was married to him on 13.9.1981. The minor Rajeswari was born out of the wedlock on 22.6.1982. After the death of his wife, the petitioner and his wife were living with the respondent for some time. After sometime, the respondent took away the minor child. Even though he filed a criminal case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli under Section 98 of Criminal Procedure Code, he could not succeed. Hence, he has filed this petition.3. The defence of the appellant was that the respondent never cared the minor or his wife. On account of his cruel treatment, the mother of the minor child set fire to herself and committed suicide. Befo...
Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr. Vs. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ650
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. Defendants are the appellants in A.S. No. 830 of 1984 and in C.M.A. No. 407 of 1986.2. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of possession of the suit property. The first defendant became a tenant under him on 3.3.1976 in respect of the vacant land. The tenancy was for a period of seven years and the first defendant agreed to vacate and handover possession after the expiry of the said period i.e., on 1.3.1983. Since the plaintiff wanted to construct a mini (cinema) theatre in the suit property, he issued a notice to the first defendant. The first defendant sent reply stating about the subtenancy in favour of the second defendant.3. The defence was that the first defendant carried out the levelling work in the suit property. He has sub-leased the suit property to the second defendant. In the defence, the earlier lease given by the father of the plaintiff is also set out. The first defendant entered into an agreement with the second defendant. They have...
M. Selvi Vs. Rangachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ416
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 506 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Salem. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of the suit agreement dated 10.1.1990.2. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 20.8.1992. Subsequent to the ex parte decree, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 651 of 1994 on 14.2.1994 for setting aside the ex parte decree and I.A. No. 650 of 1994 for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. Both the applications were posted for hearing on 16.12.1994. On that day, since the petitioner did not appear, the applications were dismissed for default. On 12.1.1995, the petitioner filed applications I.A. Nos. 73 and 74 of 1995 for restoration of I.A. Nos. 650 and 651 of 1994 respectively. The lower court had dismissed both the applications. Hence C.R.P. No. 2224 of 1996 has been filed against the order in I.A. No. 73 of 1995, and C.R.P. No. 3075 of 1996 has been filed against the ord...
D. Roja and 7 Others Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, Madras-3 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC338
Acts/Rules/Orders:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -- Section 21;Constitution of India -- Article 227Disposition: Petition dismissed1. When the matter came up for arguments, it was represented by therespondents that statutory revision lies against the impugned order underSection 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. It is seen that the compensation is awarded by the District Forum against which an appeal was filed by the respondents herein. The State Consumer Forum allowed the appeal on the ground that the complainants are not the consumers and therefore, dismissed the complaint. That order is challenged in this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is settled law that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not be invoked if there is an effective alternative remedy. When the National Forum is given such power, it is better the petitioners invoked the statutory remedy. Office is directed to return the original papers...
A.B.C. Imports and Exports and Others Vs. Assistant Director of Enforc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas270(Mad); 1998CriLJ1166
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The prayer in all these petitions is to stay all further proceedings in E.O.C.C. Nos. 523, 522, 520, 521 and 519 of 1993, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Madras, pending disposal of Appeal Nos. 615, 618, 620, 621 and 617 of 1992, before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi.2. The facts that are relevant for the disposal of these applications are these : By order dated November 12, 1992, the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposed total penalties of Rs. 15 lakhs; Rs. 1,00,70,000; Rs. 2,00,000, Rs. 7,50,000, Rs. 1,35,20,000 on the petitioners herein respectively and called upon them to pay the said penalties within 45 days of the receipt of the said order. The order was served on the petitioners in November, 1992. However, the penalties imposed were not paid despite the expiry of 45 days. Therefore, reminder notices were also served on the petitioners in August, 1993. Hence, the Assist...
K.K.C. Textile Mills and Another Vs. Maize Products
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)ALT(Cri)122; [1998]93CompCas919(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioners have presented this revision challenging the order, dismissing the discharge petition in Crl. M.P. No. 1516 of 1995 in C.C. No. 2145 of 1994 on the file of XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. 2. The facts are these : 3. The complainant/respondent sold 100 bags of maize starch powder to the petitioners/accused through the bill dated July 20, 1992. Towards the said bill amount, the accused issued two cheques for a total sum of Rs. 41,600. The said cheques were deposited into the bank by the complainant/respondent, but the same were returned with remarks 'insufficient funds' on December 13, 1993. 4. Therefore, the complainant/respondent sent a registered notice demanding payment, on December 23, 1993, i.e., within 15 days from the date of receipt of intimation that the cheques were dishonoured. The petitioners received the said notice on December 27, 1993. Though they did not make the payment, they sent a reply dated January 17, 1994, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »