Chennai Court September 1997 Judgments
Kannan and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Panruti Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ576
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In all these writ petitions, a common question arises, i.e., whether petitioner is entitled to have the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Na. Ka. No. 4270/97 dated 11.7.1997 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction, and to direct the respondent herein to extend the benefit of G.O. Ms. 285, Municipal Administration, dated 29.4.1985 to the petitioners, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. In all these writ petitioners, the petitioners are run-ning small business in bunk shops within the limits of Panruti Municipality respondent herein. All of them have a common case that they are using the bunks without causing any disturbance to the public, and they are paying rent to the Municipality as demanded. It is also their case that none of them has encroached any portion of the Government land, nor ha...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Logasundari Vs. the District Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ43
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent herein vide Na. Ka. Np. 8/134721/92, dated 21.7.1997 and quash the same.2. The petitioner claims that she belongs to Hindu Kammara Community--a scheduled tribe, that the petitioner had successfully completed her Engineering Course, that on certain anonymous petition, the first respondent directed the third respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry with respect to her social status, that the third respondent after holding enquiry, submitted a report on 30.5.1996 sustaining the claim of the petitioner, that without proceedings further based on the report of the third respondent submitted on 30.5.1996 the first respondent directed the second respondent once again to conduct a secret enquiry at P. Chettiapatti Village, Peraiyur Taluk by his proceedings dated 12.2.1997, and that the second respondent had conducted an enquiry behind the back of the ...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Sivathanu (Deceased) and ors. Vs. A.T. Chidambarathanu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ656a
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The 1st petitioner is the decree holder in O.S. No. 809 of 1978. He has filed the suit for recovery of possession. The suit has been decreed. He filed the execution petition in E.P. No. 478 of 1979 for delivery. In the execution proceedings, the respondents 1 and 2 herein took an objection stating that they are cultivating tenants, and as such, the decree cannot be executed against them. Further the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree for delivery of possession, and only the Revenue Court is empowered to evict the tenants. The lower court had accepted the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 herein and dismissed the execution petition. The present revision has been filed against the same. During the pendency of the revision 1st petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent were reported to be dead, and petitioners 2 to 9 and respondents 3 to 10 were impleaded respectively as their legal representatives.2. It is rather unfortunate that the decree holder who ...
Tag this Judgment!Sakthi Estates Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: [1999]238ITR175(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The only question raised before the Tribunal was regarding the extent to which interest should be allowed as a deduction for the assessment year 1987-88. The assessee had claimed deduction in the sum of Rs. 8,10,846.94, but the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction of Rs. 94,546.62 under section 5(k) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. He allowed a further sum of Rs. 3,84,737.67 under section 5(e) of the Act. The assessee has come up in revision regarding the amounts disallowed by the Assessing Officer, which disallowance has been affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and by the Tribunal. 2. The assessee contended before the Tribunal that what cannot be allowed under section 5(k) would be allowed under section 5(e). This argument is wholly untenable. The special provision is section 5(k). To the extent interest claimed is covered by that section having regard to the purpose of borrowing it is excluded from section 5(e). What has be...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jaganathan Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ366
A. Abdul Hadi, J.1. The claimant, who is the injured in the motor accident that took place on 21.6.1990 is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal against the compensation of Rs. 12,000 granted by the Tribunal only on the basis of no fault liability. The claim was for Rs. 6,00,000.2. The injury sustained by the appellant has resulted in the amputation of his left leg above the knee. The injury was sustained when he was getting down from the respondent's bus from the front entrance of the bus and at a place, which was not a bus stop for the said bus. The bus was proceeding from the Flower Bazaar Police Station towards Parrys Corner in George Town, Madras. -A. According to the claimant, there was a traffic jam due to some procession at the abovesaid place and the bus stopped as a consequence at the abovesaid place and the conductor himself asked the passengers, who wanted to get down at the next bus stop, viz., Parrys Corner to get down at the said place itself. Further, accordi...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sanjeeva Moorthy Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ46
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the first respondent in his proceeding Na.Ka.No. 9755/93/A3, dated 28.1.1994 quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from 3.1.1994 with all monetary benefits.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder. According to the petitioner, his ancestors, his father were permanently residing at Echanahalli village from time immemorial and by birth belonged to 'Kurichchan' community which is a Schedule Tribe class under the Tamilnadu Educational Rules and as per the Gazette Notification published by the Government of Tamilnadu. In the year 1985, he completed Higher Secondary Course. Thereafter, he made an application on 12.6.1985 for issuance of transfer certificate. In the transfer certificate issued in favour of the petitioner serial No. 224/85-86, dated 12.6.1985, ...
Tag this Judgment!Greenham Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR630(Mad)
1. In respect of the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal which has disallowed its claim for deducting a sum of Rs. 960 by way of depreciation, that amount being the cost incurred by the assessee on purchase of a pedestal fan. The assessee is also aggrieved by the rejection of its claim for deduction in entirety of the amount spent by it as its share of the expenditure incurred in bringing out a brochure regarding the enterprises of the Murugappa group. 2. The Tribunal has rejected the claim for depreciation on the sole ground that the amount claimed as depreciation is equivalent to the cost of acquisition of the asset. The fact that a pedestal fan was purchased and used for the purpose of, the business of the assessee has not been disputed by the Revenue. 3. Section 5(f) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, deals with depreciation. That provision reads as under : '5. (f) In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plan...
Tag this Judgment!income Tax Officer Vs. Radhakrishna Stores, Stationery and Book Mercha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR544(Mad)
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. The ITO, Vellore/complainant, has preferred the appeal against the order of acquittal passed in C.C. No. 236 of 1986, dt. 5th May, 1989, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-I, Vellore, North Arcot District. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows : The first accused is a partnership firm doing business in books and stationery. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are the partners in the firm. The fifth accused is running a proprietary concern in the name of Jupiter Rolling and Building Works. The sixth accused is a part-time accountant employed by the fifth accused. The first accused firm filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1984-85, declaring its income for the previous year ending 31st March, 1984, at Rs. 38,960. The return was filed on 4th January, 1985, and it was verified and signed by the second accused for and on behalf of the partnership concern. The return was accompanied by the power of attorney executed by the second accused in favour of Thiru v. D. ...
Tag this Judgment!Puthuthottam Estate (1943) Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: [2000]243ITR172(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee has come up in revision against the order of the Tribunal which has disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction of the amount paid by it as interest, except the extent to which had been allowed by the AO. The assessment years in question are 1983-84 and 1984-85. 2. The assessee has claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 8,75,159 as the amount of interest paid by it during the year 1983-84 and has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,57,881 as interest paid during the year 1984-85. Of these sums, a sum of Rs. 5,66,015 and Rs. 7,08,422, respectively, were allowed as deductions under s. 5(k). The amount disallowed for the asst. yr. 1983-84 is Rs. 3,49,459. 3. The assessee had urged before Tribunal and the same point is urged before us that interest paid on the loans incurred in earlier years should be allowed to be deducted under s. 5(e) irrespective of the purpose of borrowing. 4. We have rejected such contention in T.C. decided on (sic). 5. Sec. 5(k) does not l...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Lakshminarasimhaswami Devasthanam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR615(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee has filed these petitions under section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, against the order made by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax rejecting the petitioner's revision petitions to revise the orders of assessment made against the petitioner for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84, after those orders has been rectified by the Assessing Officer, in exercise of his powers under section 35 of the Act. The initial orders of assessment were made on August 13, 1984, assessing the petitioner to tax in the sum of Rs. 2,152.60 and Rs. 3,689.50 for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84, respectively. 2. Almost a year later, but well within the period of limitation prescribed under section 35 of the Act, which empowers the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment in order, inter alia, to include any income escaping the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the petitioner on February 15, 1985, which was received by the as...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »