Chennai Court September 1997 Judgments
income-tax Officer Vs. R.M. Sevugaperumal and Bros.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR111(Mad)
1. This appeal is directed against a judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, dated 5-6-1991 in Civil Case No. 20 of 1990. 2. Accused 1 to 3 stood charged under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and under sections 120B, 193, 196 and 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, with reference to the income-tax assessment year 1983-84. 3. The first accused is a partnership firm of which second and third accused are partners. The charge framed against the accused was that the return of income of the first accused firm for the year 1983-84 was filed on 30-12-1983, that the return was signed and verified by the second accused as part of the return, a statement of accounts was also delivered to the ITO, that the loss disclosed in the return was Rs. 57,153, that the ITO found the second accused and his wife visited Singapore and returned to Madras at 3.00 a.m. on 22-6-1982, that a sum of Rs. 54,480 was paid at tha...
Tag this Judgment!R. Narayanaswamy Vs. P.A. Abdul Majeed and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC203
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The tenant has filed the above two civil revision petitions. The first C.R.P.No.2332 of 1997 is against the order dated 24.6.1997 in M.P.No.1049 of 1996 in R.C.A.No.892 of 1996 on the file of the VIII Judge Court of Small Causes, Madras. The second C.R.P.No.2333 of 1997 is against the order passed in R.C.A.No. 892 of 1996 dated, 24.6.1997 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras. The order passed in the main appeal is consequential. Hence if we dispose of the first civil revision petition and if the tenant succeeds in the first CRP, the second C.R.P. has to be allowed.2. The facts are as follows:- The landlord filed R.CO.P.No.1006 of 1992 for eviction on the ground of wilful default etc., for the period from 1.10.1992 to 28.2.1993. The petitioner filed a counter stating that there was advance of Rs. 19,000. It was also mentioned that on an earlier occasion another R.CO.P.No.2905 of 1988 was filed. That petition was dismissed. The original la...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Ti Cycles of India Vs. C. Muthukrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ318
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This writ appeal arises out of an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 18.1.1996 made in W.P. No. 13004 of 1985. The said Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein was allowed and the matter was remitted to the management to enclose the enquiry report to the delinquent workman along with the proposed punishment and to take a decision afresh. Aggrieved against the said order the management has come forward with this writ appeal.2. Certain charges were framed against the first respondent/workman. The main portion of the charge sheet is extracted below:1. On 31.3.1981 at about 5.00 P.M. you were instructed by your superior Mr. D. George, Assistant Supdt. to work overtime for 3 hours for winding a starter of 15 H.P. Motor required urgently, which you refused to obey stating that you will not undertake that work unless you were given 5 hours overtime;2. On 31.3.1981 at about 5.15 P.M. you shouted at Mr. F.D. Gonsalvez, Clock No. 918 and abused hi...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.P. Rajes Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR214(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. Stanmore Estate, Yercaud, it is said, is held by two persons, Thiru M. S. P. Rajes and Thirumathi R. Bhanumathi Rajah, the former owning 9/10th share and the latter owning the remaining 1/10th share in the said estate. 2. The agricultural income of the said estate had been assessed to tax for the assessment year 1981-82 by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Yercaud, in proportion to the shares they held, that is to say, 9/10ths share of income from the estate had been treated as income of Thiru M. S. P. Rajes and the remaining 1/10th share of income has been treated as income of the said Bhanumathi Rajah for the assessment year, treating them as tenants-in-common. 3. It appears, one of the co-owners, feeling aggrieved by the order so passed preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Salem, who in his proceedings A.I.T.A. No. 15 of 1982, dated July 23, 1982, set aside the assessment on the sole ground that the assessment made i...
Tag this Judgment!Rajam Chettiar Maha Sivarathiri Kattalai Vs. Special Commissioner and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR794(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in proceedings No. A-1/RP No. 427 of 1979, dt. 2nd January, 1997, on the file of the Special CIT and Commr. of Agrl. IT, Chepauk, Chennai-5, and to quash the same. 2. Heard Mr. M. V. Venkataseshan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R. Arul Jothi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The petitioner-trust constituted in terms of the deed of trust dt. 15th October, 1959, is a religious and charitable trust founded by Rajam Chettiar. An extent of 90.74 acres was endowed for the trust which consists of both nanjai and punjai lands in Peraiyur and Mannargudi. 4. According to the petitioner, the income from the lands are being utilised for the performance of religious and charitable trust, as provided in the deed of trust. The petitioner trust claims that in terms of s. 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Agrl. IT Act, 1955, the entire income from the agricultural lands are exem...
Tag this Judgment!Abheychand Bhanaji Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(98)ELT17(Mad)
ORDER1. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 9th day of September, 1997 and Thursday the 11th day of September, 1997 upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof and the order of this Court dated 12-4-1988 and made herein and the records relevant to the prayers aforesaid on the file of the Respondents in both the petitions herein to the Writs made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. Thiagarajan, for Mr. M. Ranka, Advocate for the petitioner in each of the petitions and of Mr. R. G. Rajan, Advocate for the 3rd Respondent in both the petitions and the Respondents 1 and 2 not appearing in person or by the Advocates, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order :In W.P. No. 4152 of 1988, the petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to call upon the respondent herein to issue Customs Detection Certificate in respect of the subject goods entered in the Bill of Entry...
Tag this Judgment!State by Assistant Inspector of Labour Rep. by Public Prosecutor Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC656
ORDERS. Thangaraj, J.1. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Rasipuram, who was the complainant in S.T.R. Nos. 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54 of 1988, has filed these appeals challenging the dismissal of those complaints under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. for the absence of the complainant on 29.1.1988 before the said Court.2. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Rasipuram, has filed these complaints before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rasipuram, for offence under Section 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act for having opened the business establishments on a weekly holiday. Learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rasipuram, had taken those complaints on file and the accused persons have appeared before the said Court. On 29.1.1988 when the matter was taken up, the complainant was absent and the Magistrate dismissed all those complaints under Section 256(1), Cr.P.C. The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Rasipuram, has ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Murugesan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ339
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows : To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in M.S. (General Surgery) for the academic year 1993-94 or directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in M.D.(Paediatric) or in M.D. (General Medicine) for the academic year 1994-95 as per the rule of reservation given in the prospectus for admission for P.G. Medical Courses.2. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He finished his M.B.B.S. course in the year 1990. He had his House Surgenery and became a Doctor in the year 1992. It is contended that for the year 93-94 pursuant to the advertisement by the respondents for P.G. Courses, he applied for a seat in M.S. General Surgery and M.D. Dermatology. However, he was not selected. For the academic year 94-95 as per the advertisement, he applied for a seat either in M.D. Pediatric Medicin...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan Vs. H. Chunnilal Bagmar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC523
Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. The judgment-debtor in E.P. No. 59 of 1992 has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 18-11-1996 made in E.A. No. 511 of 1993. 2. The respondent herein filed the suit O.S. No. 6228 of 1981 for recovery of Rs. 37,100/- being the principal and interest due on hire purchase agreement entered into between himself and the first defendant for which the second defendant stood as guarantor for Rs. 27,000/- on 14-4-1978 in respect of Vehicle No. TMX 5889, 1972 model Hindustan Bedford. The second defendant is the petitioner Judgment debtor in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died, and the second defendant and third defendant were brought on record as Legal Representatives of the first defendant in I.A. No. 12547 of 1983. First defendant was the father and third defendant was the mother of the second defendant. Defendant No. 3 also died during the pendency of the suit. The second defendant petitioner here...
Tag this Judgment!P. Balasubramaniam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR660(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. We do not find any error in the impugned order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras, dated July 26, 1989, who has held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of compounding for the assessment year 1984-85 as his holding during that year was over 100 acres being 100.75 acres. Under section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, a person who holds or held land during any part of the financial year in excess of the exempted extent shall not be entitled to the benefit even though the extent of land held by him during the course of the financial year may not be in excess of the exempted extent. For the purpose of the Act, it is the maximum extent held during the financial year that is relevant and the fact that the lesser extent was held at some other point in the year is not relevant for the purpose of determining the eligibility for the purpose of benefit of compounding. Section 65 of the Act speaks of land held by the ass...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »