Chennai Court December 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.
V. Bhaskaran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Commissioner a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ154
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. V. Baskaran, the petitioner herein has sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records in Na.Ka.Adhi.8.28172/88, dated 28.2.1991 on the file of the District Collector, Madurai, the second respondent herein and to quash the same and to forbear the Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank, Madras third respondent herein, from placing reliance on the impugned order.2. The facts that are required for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner claiming that he hails from Kattunaicken community, a scheduled tribe, applied for the appointment of clerical cadre job in the Banking Services Recruitment Board, Southern Region. He was selected for appointment as clerk in the Bank of Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank, Madras, third respondent. The said allotment was made under the scheduled tribe category. Though the job was allotted on the basis of the Tahsildar's certificate dated 25.11.1981 and the certificate of Adi Dr...
S. Rajarathinam Vs. Seeni Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ601
ORDERS.M. Sidickk, J.1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants.2. This revision petition is directed as against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif at Trichy dated 9.10.1998 and made in I.A.No. 558 of 1997 in O.S.No. 382 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court at Trichirapalli.3. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No. 558 of 1997 under Order 26, Rule 10(a) and Section 151 of C.P.C. to pass an order of sending the original sale agreement dated 15.3.1974 to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory at Madras to verify the genuineness of the same comparing with the admitted thumb impression of the first defendant in the suit summons, vakalath, affidavit and written statement available in the suit. The said application in I.A.No. 855 of 1995 was resisted by the respondents/defendants by filing a counter statement. After considering the rival contentions of both the parties the learned P...
A.K.S. Habib Mohammed Sultan Vs. Nainsukhdas Baldevdas and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC10; (1999)IMLJ665
ORDER1. The petitioner/tenant who suffered an order of eviction before the appellate authority, has filed the above revision.2. The respondents/landlords filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.2955 of 1988 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras against the petitioner/tenant for eviction on the ground thatthe tenant has ceased to occupy the premises in question for eight months and the tenant has sublet the premises unauthorisedly. The tenant has contested the petition by filing counter stating that the case of the landlords that he ceased to occupy the premises was not correct and he did not sublet the premises to anybody. Accepting the case of the tenant, the Rent Controller rejected the eviction petition. Aggrieved, the landlords filed appeal in R.C.A.No.1100 of 1991 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, who found that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises for substantial period and the p...
T. Easwara Rao Vs. N.E. Ansari(Decd) and Six Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC221; (1999)IMLJ401
ORDER1. The deceased respondent/landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.83 of 1987 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Ootacamund against the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and for his occupation, and also for additional accommodation, with respect to the premises in question. That was resisted by the tenant by filing a counter. The Rent Controller in the order dated 4.4.1989 ordered eviction on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is a bona fide one. On the basis of the abovesaid findings the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Aggrieved, the tenant filed appeal in R.C.A.No.28 of 1989 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/District Judge, The Nilgiris at Ootacamund, who also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the appea...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bishal Enterprises
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR484(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us for consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the activities carried out for the preparation of granite blocks amounted to manufacture of an article within the meaning of Section 32A and the assessee is entitled for investment allowance under Section 32A ?'2. The year of assessment involved is 1984-85.3. The assessee is a registered firm. It was engaged in the business of mining granite blocks and exporting the same. The assessee claimed investment allowance which was negatived by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax allowed the assessee's claim and the Tribunal also confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. On that this reference has arisen.4. A similar question was considered by this court in Tax Cases Nos. 810 and 811 of 1989 and this court by its order dated October 27, 1998 (CIT v. Gomatesh Granites : [2000]2...
N.R.K. Ram Kumar Raja Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [2001]249ITR385(Mad)
P. D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent from taking any further proceedings for the reassessment of the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1989-90, in pursuance of the notice of the respondent dated August 20, 1991, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Admittedly, the petitioner, a non-resident partner in the firms, namely, N. R. Krishnama Raja, N. R. K. Merchants and Srikantha Raja, filed his returns on November 30, 1989, for the assessment year 1989-90, admitting a total income of Rs. 33,890 and a further agricultural income of Rs. 17,234 under the head 'Income from house property and other sources'. The said income was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the income-tax Act, 1961, and an assessment passed on February 5, 1989, admitting his returns.4. But, however, the respondent, by exercising power under Section 148, read with Section 147 of the Income-t...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. D.C. Kothari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [2001]250ITR110(Mad)
R. Jayastmha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that the assessee had disclosed all primary and material facts to the Wealth-tax Officer and that the reopening of the assessment under Section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was not warranted. The asset in question is the building in which the assessee had a share. The construction of the building was completed and the same was occupied in October, 1968. The valuation of the building was required to be made as on December 31, 1970. The assessee valued the land and the building separately and for the building he adopted the cost of construction. The valuation so made had been accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer. In the return filed by the assessee, he had valued the building at Rs. 22,93,650.2. The Wealth-tax Officer completed the original assessment on February 19, 1972. The same was reopened and a fresh assessment order was made on July 28, 1977, wherein the value of the building was determined as Rs. 52,61,500. On appeal to the Com...
K. Karuppiah Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR803(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J. 1. The questions have been brought before us, at the instance of the assessee. They arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. 2. The assessee as a karta of his Hindu undivided family, is a partner in the firm of Karuppiah Nadar. His minor sons had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. For these assessment years, the assessee did not file any return of his income in his individual capacity on the ground that he had no income in that capacity. The children of the assessee were assessed separately in respect of their income from that firm. After the assessment for these years had been completed, they were reopened on the ground that the assessee had failed to file a return in his individual capacity, as the income received by his children who had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership, was under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, required to be treated as income assessable in t...
Kulithalai Cane Farms P. Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR809(Mad)
T. Meenakumari, J.1. This writ petition is for issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order prohibiting the first respondent from collecting the amount from third parties towards the alleged agricultural income-tax arrears of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the managing director of the petitioner's firm and the allegation of the petitioner is that the first respondent did not have the power to issue garnishee orders directing third parties to pay the amount on account of default, which necessitated the petitioner to file a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from exercising the powers which are not granted to him under the statute. 3. The petitioner states that he is an assessee on the file of the first respondent. On or about July 1, 1954, Cauvery Sugars and Chemicals Limited, leased out the lands to the petitioner. Later on, disputes arose between the petitioner and the first respondent. The pet...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sakthi Trading Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR468(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm. For the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee had filed a return showing the income of Rs. 1,37,810 from its business in turmeric. The Income-taxOfficer made the assessment under Section 143(3) on May 30, 1984, accepting the income as returned. The Commissioner of Income-tax on a review of that assessment order, noticed that the assessee-firm had been dissolved on February 6, 1984, on the death of one of the partners of the firm and the firm had been reconstituted on the next day with the remaining five partners and that the assessment of the income for the period of February 7, 1984, to March 31, 1984, had to be made separately. He was of the view that in making the present assessment, the stock-in-trade as on February 6, 1984, had to be valued at market rate and the Commissioner had set aside the assessment and directed the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment holding that failure to take the market value of the closin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »