Chennai Court November 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.
M. NazruddIn Vs. the Idol of Arulmigu Navaneedha Krishnasami and Durga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ747
ORDERS.M. Sidickk, J.1. The revision petition is the judgment-debtor/defendant and respondents herein are the decree-holders/plaintiffs before the First Additional District Munsif's Court at Tiruchirapalli in E.A.No. 778 of 1998 in E.P.No. 246 of 1998 in O.S.No. 3062 of 1992.2. This revision petition is directed as against the fair and decretal order dated 8.10.1998 passed in E.A.No. 778 of 1998, which is an application filed by the revision petitioner/judgment-debtor/ defendant under Order 21, Rule 26 as well as under Section 151 of C. P.C., to pass a temporary order of stay of executing proceedings in E.P.No. 246 of 1998 in O.S.No. 3062 of 1992 on the file of First Additional District Munsif's Court at Tiruchirapalli till the disposal of the application filed to set aside the ex parts decree dated 15.4.1998. The same was resisted by the respondents/decree-holders/plaintiffs by filing a counter-statement to this stay petition in E.A.No. 778 of 1998. On consideration of the rival conte...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Kumari Jayalalitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN302(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us has referred to the wrong statutory provision. The provision with which we are really concerned is section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). That provision reads as under :'(e) 'assets' includes property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include, (1) ******(2) in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of 1970, or any subsequent assessment year but before the 1st day of April, 1993(i) ******(ii) a right to any annuity (not being an annuity purchased by the assessee or purchased by any other person in pursuance of a contract with the assessee) in any case where the terms and conditions relating thereto preclude the commutation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant;'The words in brackets in the provision were introduced by the Finance Act, 1974 with effect from 1-4-1975.2. The, assessment years with respect to which the question has arisen and t...
Seaways Shipping Ltd. Having Its Office at Ii Floor, Rahmat Manzil, 51 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC318
ORDER1. This judgment shall govern writ petition Nos.9469 and 9470 of 1998 as the parties are common and also the controversy involved. Common petitioner herein is a company registered under the Companies Act which carries its business as steamer agents, stevedores as also clearing and forwarding agents. Though the petitioner carries on its business all over India through its branches, the present controversy relates only to the Port of Madras and the Board of Trustees of Port of Madras is the first respondent herein. Second and third respondents are also more or less in the same business as that of the petitioner and can be conveniently called as the business rivals. It is an undisputed position that the first respondent is a statutory body and is governed by the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter called '1963 Act' for the sake of brevity). The whole controversy in the petitions revolves around two berths out of the total six berths at Jawahar Docks in Chennai ...
N. Santhiyavalli and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR430(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appropriate authority has by the impugned order rejected the petitioners' contention that the property with which it was sought to be compared was not comparable as the extent of the other property is 26.08 cents while the extent of the property which is the subject-matter of the agreement between the petitioners is 63 cents and 320 sq. ft. and such rejection, according to the petitioners, is erroneous. The petitioner also contends that the authority has failed to take note of the non-availability of the title deed with the vendors and the possibility of the minors filing a suit questioning the validity of the release deed in favour of the vendors and the effect of those circumstances on the value of the property.2. The authority has elaborately discussed the documents such as mortgage deed, release deed, etc., that were available with the vendors and reached the conclusion that they make out a marketable title. That the document of title under which the dec...
H.A.G. Dastagir Sherif Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR626(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee's request for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the years 1974-75 to 1984-85 as also for other years was rejected by the Commissioner who held that no undue hardship was caused to the assessee by the assessee having to pay the interest so levied.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that the amount of interest for all these years as also for other years was collected by the Revenue at the time the certificate under Section 230A was issued to the petitioner, which certificate he had sought prior to the sale of the property owned by him. That the property was sold as found by the Commissionerfor a sum of Rs. 5.50 crores. The aggregate amount of the interest payable by the assessee for these years is about Rs. 5.3 lakhs. The Commissioner was of the view that no undue hardship would be caused to the assessee in the background of the fact that very substantial consideration had been received by the...
C.S. Jayanandan and K.P. George Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR609(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. A residential house on a plot measuring one ground in Madras city is the subject-matter of the agreement in respect of which Form No. 37-I was filed. The agreed consideration was Rs. 15 lakhs. The transferor is a retired employee of the Railways and the transferee is engaged in business.2. The appropriate authority has made an order for compulsory purchase of the property on the ground that the plots near by had been sold at much higher prices ranging from Rs. 18.25 lakhs to Rs. 22 lakhs per ground. That view of the authority was based on two transactions under the agreement dated October 20, 1994. The proposed purchaser under those agreements was a developer who had purchased the two plots for the purpose of using the plots, together for further development. No question of tenancy which would decrease the value of the property arises in those cases.3. Though the transferor had not filed objections, the transferee in his objection to the show-cause notice state...
V.M. Nithiyanam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR328(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The medical certificate produced by the assessee to the effect that his disability was to the extent of 55 per cent. was not doubted by the Commissioner. He nevertheless rejected the petitioner's petition for relief under Section 80U of the Acton the ground that he was a partner in a firm which curried on trade in vegetables and he had beenassessed to income-tax from the year 1975. In his application the assessee had stated that he was unaware of his right to seek the relief earlier and that he filed the application for the relief, when he became so aware.2. The Commissioner has proceeded on the basis that if a man has on income despite his disability that itself would be sufficient to show that the disability has not come in the way of his earning an income. That can hardly be the test for deciding the issue as to whether the relief can be granted under Section 80U of the Act. If a man has no income, he is not assessed to tax at all and no question of granting ...
S. Gnanasundaram Vs. S. Viswanatha Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ516
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No. 79 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam, who had succeeded before the trial court and lost before the first appellate court is the appellant in this second appeal. For convenience, the parties to this appeal will be referred as arrayed before the trial court.2. Heard. Mr. B. Ramamoorthy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Srinivasan, appearing for the respondent.3. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:Whether the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable to a cultivating tenant?4. The above question of law could be answered strait by holding that Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application to the agricultural leases, in terms of Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that none of the provisions of Chapter V apply to leases for agricultura...
S. Subramanian Vs. Saraswathiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ730
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. The appellant in the second appeal in S.A.No.1451 of 1998 is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.291 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Srivilliputhur for the reliefs of possession and also for arrears of rent of Rs. 9,000.2. The appellant in S.A.No.1452 of 1998 is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No. 203 of 1990.3. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No. 203 of 1990 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Srivilliputhur for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant plaintiff.4. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Srivilliputhur who tried both the suits together, delivered a common judgment. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge after considering the rival contentions of both the parties dismissed the suit in O.S.No. 203 of 1990 and decreed the suit in O.S.No....
The Coimbatore District Aided Secondary and Higher Secondary School Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ716
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for writ of declaration, declaring Rules 12(3) and 12(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 passed by the first respondent and the consequential proceedings made by the Educational authorities as ultra vires of Section 15 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and violative of Articles 19(i)(c) and 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India, so far as the petitioners schools are concerned. Since similar contentions have been raised in all the writ petitions, for the convenience, I shall refer the factual position in W.P.NO. 12253 of 1989.2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 12253 of 1989 is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner is the Coimbatore District Aided Secondary and Higher Secondary School Management Association. It is stated that as per Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to a...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »