Chennai Court February 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.
Bharathi Surgical Company Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: 1998(61)ECC234
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to extend the benefit of exemption granted under Notification No. 208-CUS dated 22.9.81 to the goods imported under B/L.No. CBM/45 and covered by Bill of Entry bearing Import Department serial No. 063567 dated 6.12.88 and directing the first respondent to allow clearance of the goods without payment of Customs duty. WMP No. 1025/1989: Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed with W.P. No. 720 of 1989 on the file of the High Court, the High Court will be pleased to direct the first respondent to allow clearance to the goods imported under B/L.CBM 45 dated 21.9.88 and covered by Bill of Entry Import Serial No. 063567 dated 9.12.88 by extending exemption under Notification No. 208-CUS da...
V. Gurunathan Vs. P. Munusamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ140
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. One Pachaipappa Mudaliar borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 and executed a simple mortgage in favour of one Alamelu Ammal, the second respondent herein, in respect of the property in question. The said property was brought for sale through auctioneers. by the petitioner herein, and the auction was conducted on 31.5.1979. The petitioner was the successful bidder for a sum of Rs. 7,100. Thereafter to take possession of the property, the petitioner filed O.S. No. 1247 of 1980, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. That suit was resisted by the second respondent herein and the first respondent, as second and seventh defendants. After considering the points raised before the trial court in the decree dated 22.4.1985, the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for and directed the defendants 6 and 7 therein to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff/petitioner. After obtaining the decree, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 2292 of 1990 to execute...
Arumuga Naicker (Died) and ors. Vs. T.C. Baladhandayuthapani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ395
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant originally filed this revision, and after his death, his legal representatives have been brought on record, and they have, further prosecuted the revision.2. Eviction was ordered by the authorities below on the ground that the building is required by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction.3. I heard this revision and dismissed the same as per my order dated 18.9.1996. Against my decision, the matter was taken before the Honorable Supreme Court, and before the Honorable Supreme Court, a submission was made by the revision petitioners that during the pendency of the revision, the original landlord has sold the property to a third party and the subsequent sale will have material bearing in the result of the revision petition. It was also submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court that the tenants came to know about the same only after the disposal of the revision. When such submission was made, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held thus:Learn...
M. Velayudham Vs. Deputy Director (Training), Central Reserve Police F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ673
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In the writ petition, petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from taking any steps in pursuance of the order No.T.IX.2/96 ESTT.2, dated 22.5.1996 issued by the second respondent.2. The writ petition was filed on 10.6.1996.3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner joined in the Central Reserve Police Force as Constable in the year 1977. He underwent training at Baruah, Madhya Pradesh from 4.7.1977 to 14.7.1978. He was serving at various places as detailed in para 3 of the affidavit. Finally, on 27.7.1995, he was transferred to CRPF., Avadi. But, within ten months, second respondent has passed the impugned transfer order. It was not communicated to him. He was able to get an unofficial copy, and by using that he has filed the writ petition. The transfer order has been passed by the second respondent on the basis of some complaints against the petitioner. In the various gro...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parry and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)276
JAYASIMHA BABU, J. :The question that has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue in respect of the respondent M/s Parry & Co. Ltd.s assessment for the asst. yr. 1971-72, is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the cost of shares sold have to be taken on the basis of cost of acquisition and that the method of averaging the cost of acquisition of shares should not be followed even though bonus shares were allotted subsequently ?2. The dispute between the parties centres round the capital gain or loss arising from the sale of ordinary shares in Parrys Confectionery Ltd. The assessee sold 1,86,750 shares. Out of that 1,21,490 shares had been purchased by the assessee for cash at Rs. 2 per shares on 9th August, 1958. The balance of 65,230 shares had been purchased on 31st July, 1967 at the same price. At the time of sale the assessee held a total of 10,28,889 shares in the company. It had received bonus share...
T.M. Krishnamoorthy Pillai Vs. Mangalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC306; (1998)IIMLJ173
ORDER1. The second defendant in O.S.No. 320 of 1980 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakonam, who lost before both the Courts below, is the appellant in the above second appeal. 2. The said suit has been filed for recovery of possession of the suit properties on the claim made by the plaintiff that the sale in favour of the second defendant - appellant under a registered sale deed dated 31.7.1979 marked as Ex.B-4 is void and non est in the eye of law and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession, the suit having been presented within twelve years from the date of such alienation. The farther case of the plaintiff was that on 22.8.1968, Lakshmi Ammal, the mother, sold under Ex.B-1 item No.1 of 'B' schedule properties to her another son,Venkataraman, which alientation was not for the benefit of the plaintiff or her sister and that it is also bit by section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and consequently, the subsequent sale by...
R. R. Thulasiram Vs. the Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Housing and U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC340
ORDER1. Since the subject matter in question and the respondents herein are one and same, both the writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the concerned parties herein.2. In support of their writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions seeking for writ of Certiorari to call for the records in G.O.Ms.No.954 Housing and Urban Development (T.I.) Department, dated 25.9.1989 of the Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (T.I.) Department, Madras-9 the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned.3. In support of their case the 1st respondent has filed separate counter affidavits in these writ petitions adopting the counter affidavits filed by the2nd respondent herein. In the counter affidavits file...
ismail Gani Vs. Maim Ponn Pattu Beevi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC735; (1998)IIIMLJ64
ORDER1. The first defendant is the appellant. The first respondent herein filed suit O.S.No.140 of 1984 before the District Munsif's Court, Melur, against the appellant and the second respondent for declaration and permanent injunction on the following averments:The suit property of an extent of 60 cents in R.S.No.293/2 out of a total extent of 3 acres 22 cents in Nadumandalam Village, Natham Vattam, originally belonged to her father Kattuvan Rowther and on his death there was a partition under a registered deed Ex.A-1 on 12th April, 1956. Under the partition, the suit property was allotted to the first respondent's mother Ayesha Beevi Ammal. Since the first respondent was not allotted any share in the properties of her father, the mother Ayesha Beevi executed a gift deed Ex,A-2 dated 7.5.1964 in favour of the first respondent in respect of the property allotted to Ayesha Beevi. The first respondent in her turn, executed a registereddeed of maintenance under Ex.A-3 dated 7.5.1984 in fa...
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR122(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred to us for our decision at the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78 are :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the accrued interest on hire purchase of machinery on loans and penal interest are liable to be included in the total income, notwithstanding the fact that the due dates of payment fell after 31st March, of the relevant previous year ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 91,012 being estimated interest on the cost of land taken over by the assessee from the Government was not allowable as an expenditure as it was in the nature of contingent liability only ?' As regards the first question, the Tribunal has, in the course of its order, noted at para. 3 that the accrued interest as also penal interest, it was admitted by the assessee, stood on the same footing involving identical c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Electron India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR166(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred :Whether, on the Appellate Tribunal's view that the assessee had commenced its business during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74 and that it is entitled to the loss to be computed is sus-tainable in law ?'2. The assessment year is 1973-74. The business in which the assessee is engaged is the manufacture of cadmium sulphide photo cells based on a process developed by the Central Electro Chemical Research Institute, Karaikudi. It acquired plant and machinery and installed the same in the previous year relevant to the assessment year. It had also commenced production and prepared the cadmium sulphide salt, but the cadmium sulphide salt produced not being of the required purity, there was no sale of the final product in that year. Nevertheless, the assessee had incurred expenditure in that activity of manufacturing though what was manufactured could not be sold. The ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »