Chennai Court October 1998 Judgments
T. Pramod Wilson and 3 Others Vs. Dr. Hari Ramesh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC732
ORDER1. The above revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.7.1998 made in RCA.No. 337 of 1991 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Small Causes Court) Madras, setting aside the order of the eviction dated 6.12.1990 made in RCOP.No. 1727 of 1988 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (XI Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras. 2. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows: The landlords were the revision petitioners who filed the above RCOP.No. 1727 of 1988, seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant, under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground of wilful default for non-payment of rent for the period from January 1987 to March 1988, at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month. 3. According to the revision petitioners, the petition premises namely door No. 224, Indira Nagar, 4th Avenue, Madras-20 originally let out to the respondent-tenant, by one ...
Tag this Judgment!Sarathy Palayacat Company Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR484(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner was permitted to bring into India the sale proceeds of the goods exported beyond the period of six months from the end of the previous year and beyond August 30, 1994, up to which date extension had been granted. The assessment year is 1993-94. The petitioner had made a further application for extension of time on October 3, 1995, to extend the time up to January 7, 1995, on which date the sale proceeds had been brought into India. That application was rejected by the Chief Commissioner on January 10, 1996, on the ground that extension cannot be given retrospectively.2. Section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inter alia, empowers the Chief Commissioner to fix the period beyond six months from the end of the previous year within which the exporter should bring in the monies into India. The relevant section reads as under :'80HHC. (2)(a) This section applies to all goods or merchandise, other than those specified in Clause (b), if the sale ...
Tag this Judgment!C.B.S. Property Development (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. District Consumer Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]102CompCas266(Mad); (1999)IMLJ312
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the respondents in Complaint No. 146 of 1998, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore.2. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners herein are builders. The complainants purchased constructed flats from the opposite parties in 50 cents of land in Ward No. 1, Block No. 29, in T. S. No. 1349, Trichy Road, Coimbatore. It is the further case that all the flats that are constructed by the petitioners herein are residential apartments and not to be used for commercial purpose. The complainants have purchased the undivided one-twenty-fourth shares in the entire 50 cents of land and all the complainants have occupied the respective flats in the month of July, 1996.3. While so, they found a shortfall in the area of land recorded in their agreement and the sale deed. The petitioners herein ought to have registered the sale deeds for the extent of land as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavani Mills Ltd. Vs. Member (it and J), Central Board of Direct Taxe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR636(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a textile mill which filed its returns under the Income-tax Act, 1961, belatedly for the assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1991-92. Those returns were required to be filed on July 31, 1988, December 51, 1989, and December 31, 1991, respectively, but were filed on January 3, 1990, January 3, 1990, and November 24, 1993, respectively. In all the returns, the assessee had claimed carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation.2. All these returns were lodged by the Income-tax Officer under Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the returns were filed beyond the time specified under Section 139(1) of the Act. Under Section 139(10) of the Act, as it then stood, such returns were deemed never to have been furnished.3. The petitioner, after an interval of four years, in June, 1994, applied to the Central Board of Direct Taxes under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condoning the delay in filing the returns. The reasons put forth i...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Chockappan and ors. Vs. the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ587
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the surcharge order passed by the second respondent dated 10.9.1987, as confirmed by the common judgment dated 28.2.1990 made in S.T.C.A.Nos.66 to 71 of 1988 on the file of the first respondent, the petitioners numbering 6 have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.2. The case of the petitioners is briefly stated hereunder: First petitioner herein is the President, second petitioner is Ex. Vice-President and petitioners 3 to 6 are Ex-Directors of the third respondent-Society. It is stated that when the first petitioner was the President, the erstwhile Secretary, now dead, was in sole charge of the entire business of the society as per the Bye-law and resolution, and thus making use of that opportunity, he had defalcated the funds of the said society and caused loss to the assets of the same. Neither the first petitioner nor the other petitioners was negligent or careless in supervising, checking the accounts and deducting the mi...
Tag this Judgment!P. Chenchu Ramiah Vs. A.M. Noohu Nachia and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ324
ORDERS. Subramani, J.1. First defendant in O.S. No. 5628 of 1998, on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner. The revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. First respondent herein filed the simple suit O.S. No. 5628 of 1998, for injunction to restrain the defendants in the suit who are two in number, from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the plaint, it was stated that she purchased the property on 5.2.1966 and that she is enjoying the same. It is also stated therein that she is staying at her native place at Thanjavur. Property Tax, water tax and Government dues in respect of the property are paid by representative of plaintiff in the name of plaintiff, and that she had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is also alleged in the plaint that the defendants are rank trespassers, and, taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff, de...
Tag this Judgment!Kodi Idi Kondaiyan Chettiar Vs. P. Sivasamy and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC641; (1998)IIIMLJ754
ORDER1. The petitioner/landlord who failed in his attempt in getting the order of eviction has filed the above revisions. 2. The petitioner/landlord filed the petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.12 of 1988 and 5 of 1987 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Srivilliputtur on the ground that the respondents/tenants had not paid the rent with respect to their respective premises in question and so such non-payment amounts to wilful default and they are liable for eviction. The respondents though had admitted that they entered into tenancy with respect to the properties in question, owned by the petitioner, and in 1986 the Government removed the superstructures, as they were put up in Poromboke land. Thereafter, it cannot be construed that the respondents are the tenants, though they themselves put up the superstructures in the said land and got 'B' memos from the Government. The Rent Controller accepting the case of the tenants rejected the petitions as there is no relationshi...
Tag this Judgment!Jothi Ammal and Three Others Vs. Kulandai Vadivel and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC457; (1999)IMLJ35
ORDER1. The tenants/petitioners who suffered an order of eviction before the appellate authority have filed the above revision.2. The respondents/landlords filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No. 49 of 1984 for eviction of the premises in question against the petitioners/tenants on the file of the learned Rent Controller/Tiruchirappalli under Sections 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act 18 of1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Since, before this Court, arguments were made only with respect to. the correctness of the order passed on the basis of the requirement of the premises in question for the additional accommodation, I am not dealing with the other issue.3. According to the respondents, the respondent in the R.C.O.P. are in possession and enjoyment of the building bearing door No.18-C, which is a portion of the entire building bearing door No. 18, and the petitioners herein/tenant in the R.C.O.P. has been in possession and enjoyment of the building...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Director, Regional Office ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: [1999(81)FLR416]; (1999)IIILLJ1236Mad
ORDERShivraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are the following: The petitioner-Company has got two mills, one at Peelamedu and another at Perianaickenpalayam, engaged in the manufacture of yarn; most of the employees employed in the mills at Peelamedu are covered by the Employees' State Insurance Act (for short 'ESI Act') and the scheme framed thereunder; the petitioner has been deducting statutory contribution from the wages payable to the employees and remitting the contribution in accordance with the provisions of the E.S.I. Act; the respondent issued two notices to the petitioner dated May 5, 1987 and February 14, 1989 to show within fifteen days why contribution as per statements enclosed with them should not be recovered; the principal employer, i.e., the petitioner, replied to the said show cause notices and the petitioner was given personal hearing on May 28, 1987 and March 8, 1989; th...
Tag this Judgment!Honarary Secretary, Cms Matriculation Higher Secondary School Vs. Regi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ128Mad
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The relief sought for in both the writ petitions being the same, based on common set of facts, raising similar contentions, they are disposed of by this common order. Writ Petition No. 9383 of 1989 is filed by the Honorary Secretary, CMS Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Ganapathy, Coimbatore, Writ Petition No. 12458 of 1989 is filed by the 50 teachers and staff members of the same school.3. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the respondent - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore, in his proceedings No. C3/TN/21737/Enf/CBE-V/89, dated June 28, 1989, and quash the same and to further direct the respondent to consider their application, dated June 9, 1989, for grant of exemption under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, on merits and in the light of the guidelines given in S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »