Chennai Court October 1998 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.
Vorion Chemicals and Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR638(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent in his proceedings F. No. I/December, 1985, dated March 11, 1988.2. The petitioner purchased the property situated in R. S. No. 126/5 (part) under a registered sale deed dated August 9, 1985, for a total consideration of Rs. 32,20,000 from one R.V. Sarojini Devi. The vendor obtained the certificate under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The property consists of 12 grounds and 494 sq. ft. with a building of 2,200 sq. ft. in the ground floor and 800 sq. ft. in the first floor. The land attracts the purview of the Land Ceiling Act and the petitioner has to meet the proposed land acquisition proceedings arising out of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act. The vendor is in any way not responsible to clear the proceedings that would arise under the Land Ceiling Act. Keeping all these in mind, the value of the property has been fixed at Rs. 32,20,000 which represents the fair m...
Dr. K. Mohan Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR94(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramaniam, J.1. This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the second respondent passed in proceedings No. 21/IV/138 of 1993-I.T. dated February 8, 1996, and to direct the Settlement Commission to consider the application for waiver of interest leviable under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a doctor by profession. There was a search in his premises and the petitioner moved the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Madras, for settlement of his tax liabilities for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93. He also prayed for waiver of interest and penalties leviable under the Act. The Settlement Commission in the order passed initially did not indicate the basis under which it had refused to waive the interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, The petitioner therefore filed a miscellaneous petition for clarification and direction as regards interest under Sec...
T.V. Sundararn Iyengar and Sons Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1438Mad
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner aggrieved against the order passed by the respondent, dated January 16, 1992, has filed the above writ petition praying to quash the said order.2. According to the petitioner, insofar as the Trichy branch is concerned, the persons working there are governed by Standing Orders, which were certified by Certifying Officer on June 23, 1980. One of the clauses in the Standing Orders which is relevant for the purpose of this case, is as follows:'Apprentice/learner, is one who is engaged for any period for the purpose of learning any work, with or without stipend or any allowance, as may be mentioned in the contract of appointment. The apprentices taken under the provisions of the Apprentices Act arc not covered by these Standing Orders.'So, the persons who have been allowed to learn the work, cannot be construed as workmen under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The respondent, in the impugned order, though found that ...
The Kattabettu Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Limited Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ262
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The plaintiff, Co-operative Society in A.R.C. 52 of 1989-90 and A.R.C. 53 of 1989-90 is the revision petitioner in both the petition.2. A dispute was raised by the Society before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under Section 90 of the Act. First respondent in both the revisions were the defendant in the proceedings. The dispute was raised to realise amount from the defendant on the allegation that there was deficiency in the stock of materials of the Society when the defendants were in charge of the same.3. An award was passed against the defendants by the Registrar in terms of the claim. Both the defendants preferred C.M.A. 6 and 7 of 1997 on the file of District Judge, Udhagamandalam. The lower court dismissed the claim on the ground that the same is barred by the limitation. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the appellate order.4. I heard both the counsel in detail. The only point that is urged by the...
M. Sivakumar Vs. the Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Develop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ631
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings dated 12.4.1998 and quash the appointment issued in favour of the 4th respondent and thus render Justice.2. Petitioner, who is an unemployed graduate, after having completed his degree course, also completed ten months course of co-operative training offered by Government Institute. Petitioner has also enrolled his name in the district employment office and he is waiting for a long time for getting an employment. The third respondent, the President of M. Vellalapatti Milk Producers Co-operative Society and 11 elected representatives are to take the collective decisions, It is also under the control of the respondents land 2 and under their direction, the society has to run.3. A Board meeting was proposed to be held on 12.4.1998 and by the time the members assemble, the third respondent had taken away all the papers and nothing happened on that dat...
Kamatchi Ammal and Another Vs. S. Karunakaran and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC196; (1998)IIIMLJ702
ORDER1. The Legal Representatives of the decree holder in O.S.No.234 of 1971 have filed the above revision, aggrieved against the order passed by the learned District Judge, Cuddalore in C.M.A.No.48 of ,1990, dated 24.9.1991, setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Court, Cuddalore in E.A.No.880 of 1986 in E.P.No.64 of 1984 in O.S.No.234 of 1971, filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the second defendant to set aside the sale. 2. One Kamatchi Ammal filed the suit on mortgage in O.S.No.234 of 1971 on the file of the Sub-Court Cuddalore and obtained a decree on 28.2.1973. The auction sale was held on 25.8.1986. To set aside the said sale, the second defendant filed the application in E.A.No.880 of 1986, under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code on the ground that no notice was served on him in theExecution Petition and so the further proceedings cannot be sustained and the same has to be set aside. According to the second defendant, his date of birth is 7.6.1957 an...
N. Krishnan Vs. T.R. Kuppusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC730; (1999)IMLJ169
ORDER1. The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 19.8.1996 made in I.A. No.8764 of 1995 in O.S.No.3086 of 1994 by the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, thereby refusing to grant unconditional leave to defend the suit and prove his case.2. It is the petitioner/defendant who filed the said application before the trial court under Order 37 Rule 3(5) C.P.C. praying to the effect as aforementioned alleging in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, that the suit is barred by pro-notes would show that they were executed at Thirunindravur where he resides and no cause of action would arise to the lower court; that the suit transaction was with one K. Shanmuga Mudaliar, and the plaintiff is one in whose favour the three pro-notes dated 6.5.1984 were made over; that he had been given notice only after assignment of the pro-notes; that the amounts had not been specified either on the pro-notes or in the letter dated 25.2.1990, th...
A. Balasubramaniam and 4 Others Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvanmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC742
ORDER1. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the notification No.9 dated 7.8.1989 issued by the first respondent relating to the attachment and proposed sale by public auction of the land measuring about 3.35 acres in total comprised in survey No.439/5 and patta No. 513 of No. 189 Sholinganallur village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District and another extent of 1 acre in the same Survey No.2. The case of the petitioner is that in order to discharge the loan obtained by M/s Easwari Engineers Private Limited and on a request of one Mrs. Rajeswari Duraisamy the original owner of the land measuring an extent of 2.35 acres, the petitioner herein rendered financial assistance to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs which had been deposited in the main branch of Karur Vysya Bank in November, 1983 and subsequently credited on 18.11.1986 in the account of the said loan. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to discharge the said sum of Rs. lakhs, the said-Mrs. Rajeswari Duraisamy offered ...
Mrs. Sakunthala and ors. Vs. Mrs. A. Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ101
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 10.12.1997 made in R.C.A. No. 183 of 1996 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 8.8.1995 made in R.C.O.P. No. 1384 of 1992 by the Rent Controller and XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, in ordering the eviction of the revision petitioners herein from the premises concerned on an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.2. The contents of the petition filed by the landlady under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the R.C.O.P. No. 1384 of 1992 are that, the petition mentioned properties and some other properties were originally belonging to her mother's father, one Chidambaram Pillai and the said 4 prop...
Easwaran Vs. T.K. Venkatachalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ168
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 10.11.1993 made in E.A. No. 653 of 1992 in E.P. No. 271 of 1989 in O.S. No. 634 of 1977 by the Court of District Munsif, Tiruppur, thereby allowing the said execution application in favour of the first respondent herein.2. The averments of the said application filed by the first respondent herein who is the petitioner before the lower court are that, he is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property; that he took 2/3 rd share of the entire property belonging to the respondents No.2 to 8 in auction in E.P. No. 489 of 1978 in O.S. No. 706 of 1977 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore (A suit for recovery of money filed by R. Venkidusamy Chit Funds against V.T.V. Raghunath Rao and others). Then, he filed a partition suit for dividing his 2/3rd share in the entire property consisting of vacant area and buildings as per the suit in O.S. No. 58 of 1982...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »