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.
Maria Soosai and anr. Vs. Esakkiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ119
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the filing of O.S. No. 33 of 1998, on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli.2. Reason for filing the revision is, that as between parties, there was an earlier litigation which has been confirmed by this Court, and in spite of the same, defendant therein has ventured to file the present suit, which is an abuse of process. They pray that O.S. No. 33 of 1998 may be struck off the file.3. O.S. No. 1017 of 1983, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tirunelveli was filed by the present petitioners for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It was averred in that case that the property originally belonged to one Vakil Thiagaraja Pillai, and, for service rendered to him by the petitioners' father late Velu alias Asirvatham, the property was given to him as a gift orally. The donee came into possession and patta was also granted to him recognising his possession. It was a minor inam est...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Meco-tronics (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1998
Reported in: (2000)159CTR(Mad)297
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 5(1A) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, the Tribunal was right in holding that the donations made by the assessee in the month of Ramzan were pure and simple charity, devoid of any religious intent and consequently free from the Gift Tax liability?' The assessment years are 1972-73 to 1978-79.2. The assessee is a limited company, the managing director of which happens to be a Muslim by religion. In the course of income-tax assessment proceedings, it is found that the assessee- company had paid contribution by way of charitable donations year after year during the month of Ramzan. The amount paid by way of charity varies from Rs. 25,706 to a high of Rs. 53,552 during the years 1972-73 to 1978-79. The amount of the gift to any single individual was less than Rs. 100 at any time. The Gift Tax Officer tr...
S. Murugesan and 2 Others Vs. S. Pethaperumal and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: AIR1999Mad76; 1999(1)CTC458; (1999)IMLJ69
ORDER1. The petitioners/plaintiffs 2 to 4 aggrieved by the order passed by the court below, allowing the application filed by the first defendant/first respondent in I.A.No.106 of 1998 in O.S.No.249 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pudukkottai, have filed the above revision in C.R.P.No.2090 of 1998.2. The plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.118 of 1998 in O.S.No.249 of 1994 on the file of Sub-Court, Pudukkottai, to accept the reply statement in the suit which was rejected by the court below, and, aggrieved against the same, they have filed another revision in C.R.P.No.2091 of 1998.3. The plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking a decree for partition of the suit properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of one Subramania Pillai who died on 20.11.1993, leaving his wife, the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. The first plaintiff also died o...
M/S. M.M. Jaffar and Co., Coimbatore and Four Others Vs. M/S. Coimbato ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC620; (1998)IIIMLJ741
ORDER1. The petitioners/landlords who failed in their attempt to get the order of eviction before the authorities below, have filed the above revisions.2. There are six portions in the building in question and five tenants are occupying the said building in the respective portions. According to the petitioners, on 31.10.1984, the then Prime Minister of India was assassinated at New Delhi and an unprecedented violence in the city of Coimbatore had sparked off. The building belonging to the petitioners which is in the occupation of the tenants was also attacked by goondas who set fire to the building, due to which the building suffered extensive damage. On the basis that the building had suffered substantial damage which is permanent in nature and it is unfit for the purpose of occupation and also on the ground that the petitioners proposed to erect a new modern building in the site, filed R.C.O.P.Nos.366 to 391 of 1984 to the effect that they require the building bona fide for the purpo...
Nepc Micon Limited, 36, Wallajah Road, Chennai-2 and Another Vs. Hindu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas532(Mad); 1998(2)CTC709
ORDER1. The appellants in these two appeals are private limited companies, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having registered office at No.36, Walajah Road, Anna Salai, Chennai. The appellants have challenged the order of this Court passed under company jurisdiction, in C.A.Nos.408 and 409 of 1998 in C.P.Nos. 17 and 18 of 1997, in these appeals.2. The aspect to be considered in these appeals is, whether the impugned order is devoid of various statutory safeguards against admission, advertisement and publication of winding up petitions? In order to appreciate the legality of the impugned order, it is appropriate to refer the objects of the company, the position of the parties and how the demand made, which led to the filing of the company petitions. The main objects of the company are: (i) to carry on business of manufacturers, sellers, importers, exporters, suppliers, lessors or lessees and dealers of all kinds of power generation equipments including wind ...
Bharathidasan University, Palkalai Perur, Tiruchirapalli Rep. by Its R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC236; (2001)8SCC676; AIR2001SC2861
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In these appeals, in the tight of the contentions raised by the parties, the only question that needs to be answered is, whether Bharathidasan University, Palkalai Perur, Tiruchirappalli in this State of Tamil Nadu, should seek approval of AH India Council for Technical Education to start technicalcourses in the University or to start a Technical Institute to conduct technical courses. For convenience, hereafter we will refer to the said University as 'University' and the All India Council for Technical Education as 'Council'.3. Writ Appeal No.1308 of 1998 is filed by the University and Bharathidasan Institute for Engineering and Technology. Writ Appeal No.1309 of 1998 is filed by a student, who was respondent No.4, impleaded in the Writ Petition No.14558 of 1998 and Writ Appeal No.1326 of 1998 is filed by another student, who was not a party in the writ petition, but after seeking leave from...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.N.B. Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR439(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question of law referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see, who is engaged in making photostat copies of documents with aid of xerox machine, is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A in respect of the xerox machine ?'2. The assessment year is 1984-85.3. The assessee is a firm engaged in the job work of making xerox copies. Its claim for investment allowance was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. That was subsequently allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, whose order was upheld by the Tribunal.4. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the process of duplication does not result in the manufacture of any goods, articles or things and, therefore, the investment allowance under Section 32A cannot be allowed to the assessee. Counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Everest Copiers v. State of Tamil Nadu [1996] 103 STC 360, wherein...
J.A. Nainmal Vs. Kanniappan (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ375
S. M. Sidickk, J.1. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant and the first respondent is the petitioner/landlord before both the courts below.2. This civil revision petition is filed as against the judgment and decree dated 24.3.1998 passed in R.CA.No. 836 of 1994 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras confirming the fair and decretal Order passed on 6.9.1994 in R.C.O.P.No. 3143 of 1992 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras.3. The deceased first respondent/landlord died during the pendency of this revision petition and his legal representatives were brought on record as per order dated 15.10.1998 in C.M.P. No. 14298 of 1998.4. The deceased first respondent/landlord filed an application against the revision petitioner/tenant under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 for eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the building in question on the ground of wilf...
Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Devasthanam, Represented by Its Executive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ54
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner-temple is the owner of the land in question. The petitioner filed the respective suits against the respondents to evict them from the said land. The respondents filed respective applications under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, and, the court below ordered the same. While ordering the respective petitions, the court below has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to sell the respective petition mentioned properties for a particular price, which would be deposited by the respective respondents/ tenants in the court within four months, and the petitioner/ plaintiff has been directed to obtain necessary sanction from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment before disposing of the suit properties. The respondents/tenants admittedly deposited the amount in time and filed the execution petitions to get the sale deed executed as per the decree passed under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. The petitioner/ plai...
Thanjai Murasu and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR465(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. II), Egmore, Chennai, in M. P. No. 303 of 1996 in E. O. C. C. No. 180 of 1985, on August 22, 1997.2. The allegations made in M. P. No. 303 of 1996 are as follows : The complaint against the accused is that they have fabricated false evidence to show that they incurred expenditure of Rs. 1,87,500 by way of purchase of accessories and parts fitted to the printing units sold by them with a view to use the same for the assessment year 1979-80 and thus he made false statement. This was done with a view to evade payment of tax under the Income-tax Act and hence the accused fraudulently and dishonestly induced the Income-tax Officer to make an assessment order based on the alleged false return of income and statements with a view to have the tax payable by the accused at a lower rate than the legitimate rate of tax, which would be due. The accused, aggrieved by the order of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »