Chennai Court December 1997 Judgments
The Management, Agricultural Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC75
ORDER1. The petitioner Tamil Nadu Agricultural University which has agricultural Research Station at Velayuthapuram. Kovilpatti, is aggrieved by the order made by the Commissioner of Labour on 23.12.1987 under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act which order was made on an application filed by the Secretary of the Kovilpatti Agricultural University Workers Union.2. The application was for a decision on the question as to whether the Agricultural Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University at Velayudhapuram would come under the definition of 'shop' contained in Section 2(16) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947.3. The Commissioner has held that the Research Station does fall within the definition of shop as defined in the Act, after rejecting the preliminary objection that had been raised by the University to the effect that the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act 1947 will have no application in view of section 4(1)(c) of the Act, whereu...
Tag this Judgment!A. Krishna Rao Vs. L. S. Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC329
ORDER1. The third accused in CC.No.274 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Wallajapet has filed this Crl. Original petition under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings in the said case.2. The main averments in the petition are that the complainant one Kumar preferred a complaint against the petitioner and others before the SIPCOT Police Station at Ranipet and a receipt in F.D.R. No.110 of 1993 has been issued to him by the Police. As the police have not taken any further action on the said complaint, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Wallajapet and the learned Magistrate has forwarded the said complaint to the police under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. The police registered a case in Grime No. 389/94 under Sections 323, 341 and 506(2) , I.P.C. and after investigation filed the final report on 9.12.94 referring the case as 'Mistake of fact' Learned Magistrated sent a memo along with the RC...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Surulivel Nadar and Brothers Vs. Central Bank of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas81(Mad); 1997(3)CTC119
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 152 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-Court, Periyakulam, is the petitioner herein. The plaintiff/first respondent-bank filed the said suit for recovery of certain amount against the petitioner herein as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 24 herein. Originally, in paragraph 7 of the plaint it, has been stated that the partners of the ninth defendant-firm had deposited the title deeds in respect of items Nos. 1 to 4, 11 and 12 of 'A' schedule with the plaintiff-bank as security for all the amounts due from the first defendant under various accounts. It is further stated that those properties are belonging to defendants Nos. 2, 3 and one late Pandian and late V. N. Surilimani, whose legal representatives had been added as defendants Nos. 16, 17, 20 and 8, 15, 21 to 23. The title deeds have been deposited with an intention to create security. It is further stated that the first defendant-firm, through all its partners, has deposited the title de...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.T.S. Nagamanickam Chettiar (Decd.) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR556(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessment year involved in this case is tile assessment year 1978-79 and the question that arises for consideration is whether the assessee is a firm and entitled to registration for the assessment year 1978-79 2. The assessee is a firm and for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee filed a return of income on January 25, 1979, admitting the income of Rs. 20,542. The assessee claimed that it is entitled to the benefit of registration, but the Income-tax Officer by a separate order held that the status of the assessee should be taken as an association of persons and not a registered firm. The Income-tax Officer followed his earlier order wherein he has refused to grant registration to the firm and following his earlier order, he held that the status of the assessee should be taken as an association of persons. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner following the order of th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P.S. Sridharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR835(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessment year involved is 1974-75 and the matter arises under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. We have set out the facts of the assessee's case in a tax case which arose under the provisions of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 which came up for consideration before us in T.C. No. 890 to 894 of 1983, wherein the judgment was delivered in the said tax cases of even date. We also noticed that there was a claim for partial partition but there was no order recognising the partial partition passed either under section 171 of the Income-tax Act or under order 20 of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee filed a return in the status of a Hindu undivided family disclosing a net wealth of Rs. 10,64,034 which was later revised and the assessment was completed including certain amounts. This original assessment made by the Wealth-tax Officer was reopened and according to the Wealth-tax Officer a sum of Rs. 4,36,558 was due to t...
Tag this Judgment!General Exporters Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)138; [2000]241ITR845(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the first respondent dated 14-10-1997 in Order No. 66/III/97-98 (1127/III/Judn./97-98) and quashing the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the respondents. With the consent of either side, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter has been filed by the respondents, as there is no factual dispute and the counsels for either side confined themselves to the legal contentions alone. 4. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 9731 of 1997 on the file of this Court to call for and quash the order of transfer dated 10-6-1997 passed by the first respondent. This Court, by order dated 11-9-1997, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned proceedings dated 10-6-1997 and directed the respondents to pass fresh orders in terms of section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatesulu Vs. V. Chandra and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC39
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondents filed R.CO.P.No. 170 of 1993 to evict the petitioner on the ground of wilful default, since the petitioner is in arrears from January, 1993. The R.C.O.P. was filed on 29.9.1993. Pending the R.C.O.P the respondents herein filed I.A.No. 742 of 1994 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, stating that the petitioner is in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 4,250 and unless he deposits the rent he cannot contest the eviction proceedings. By order dated 22.2.1995 the Rent Controller allowed the said petition and directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent on or before 11.4.1995. Since the said order had not been complied with, eviction was ordered in R.CO.P.No. 170 of 1993. As against these orders, the petitioner preferred appeals in R.C.A.Nos. 45 and 46 of 1995. The Appellate Authority concurred with the order of Rent Controller and dismissed the appeals, by common order dated 2...
Tag this Judgment!Farook Textiles, Rep. by Its Partner S.K.M. Razeena Begum Vs. Bajran S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC321
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 4605 of 1997 on the file of the 6th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras has filed this revision against the order dated 14.10.1997 in I.A.No.11865 of 1997 wherein an order of attachment was made. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not made out any case for an order under Order 38, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code. There is absolutely no averment as required under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lower court has passed an order of attachment without assigning any reason.2. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the attitude taken by the petitioner and in view of certain admissions the court below has passed an order of attachment and the interest of the respondent has to be taken care of in case he succeeds in the suit. In order to consider the rival contentions of the counsel first of all I shall refer to the averments made...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ganapathy Vs. D. Paul Raj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC331
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No. 7 of 1987 for recovery of money against the petitioner and the said suit was decreed. Pursuant to the said decree, the respondent filed an execution petition E.P.No. 19 of 1996 seeking the arrest of the petitioner. The executing court, by order dated 24.3.97 has allowed the application and ordered the arrest. As against this order, the present revision has been filed,2. Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, the learned senior counsel contended that the petitioner filed the suit O.S.19 of 1983 against the respondent herein and obtained a decree for recovery of money, The said decree amount has to be adjusted in this execution petition filed by the respondent and the petitioner is liable to pay only the balance. The lower court is not correct in refusing to adjust the amount and ordering the arrest.3. On the contrary, Mrs. Chitra Sampath, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent had made an endorsement in the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR248(Mad)
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that the reassessment made under section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act was without jurisdiction and, therefore, invalid ?'The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1976-77 and claimed extra depreciation in respect of certain plant and machinery which were leased out to Spencer and Co., which is running a hotel, approved by the Central Government. The assessee claimed extra depreciation allowance at 50 per cent. of the normal depreciation under item No. Ill, Part 1 of Appendix 1 to the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Income Tax Officer in the original assessment for the year 1976-77 granted the extra depreciation as claimed by the assessee. Subsequent to the completion of the original assessment, the audit party had drawn to the attention of the Income Tax Officer that the initial depreciation was wrongly allowed as the assessee has only lea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »