Chennai Court April 1998 Judgments
Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Union of India and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)122
ORDERY. VENKA TA CHALAM, J.:Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarilied mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in F. No. 473/248/88-FTD dt. 3rd Jan., 1989 and to quash the same and also to direct the 2nd respondent to grant approval of the agreement dt. llth June, 1985 entered into with Mls Techno Link Ltd., Martins Chambers, Channel Islands by the petitioner under s. 80-0 of the IT Act and consequential relief by the 2nd and 3rd respondents.2. In support of their writ petition, the petitioner company has filed an affidavit wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and prayed that the writ petition may be ordered as prayed for. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, they placed their arguments before this Court.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appeari...
Tag this Judgment!Manoharan Vs. Velu and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC72; (1998)IIIMLJ272
ORDER1. The first plaintiff in OS No. 158 of 1987, on the file of the District Munsif, Aranthangi is the revision petitioner. The respondents are thedefendants in that suit. The application filed by the first plaintiff in IA No.598 of 1992 to continue the suit as Power Agent of the legal representative of the deceased second plaintiff was dismissed on merits. The correctness of that order, dated 3.12.1992 is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition.2. I heard Mr.C.S.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr.G.Muthukrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to Mr.C.S.Gopalakrishnan, the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge in the order under challenge are wholly erroneous in law and are not supported by Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore, it has to be necessarily set aside. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, though the power document was executed in Ceylon, y...
Tag this Judgment!Vallipattu Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank C. 1056 Rep. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC351
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certionari to call for the records relating to Roc. 9000 of 1997/ A-2, dated 3.9.1997 of the 2nd respondent, and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that the society was formed in the year 1956 for the purpose of giving loans to members so as to enable them to purchase agricultural instruments and domestic items in and around Vallipattu area. After a long time, election was held for various Co-operative Societies, and the defendant contested for the office of the Vice President and took charge on 17.6.1997. On the strength of the financial services of the society, it is classified as a 'B' class Co-operative Society containing over 2000 members. Before 1997, the affairs of the society was in the hands of the Government, and was not properly managed. In order to revitalize the society, the dependent alleges that various records were perused and ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Yennarkay R. Ravindran Family Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR724(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. Shri Yennarkay R. Ravindran, as karta, and his two minor sons, as coparceners, were earning income from the business known as 'Standard Match Industries'. On August 30, 1974, the karta executed a trust deed, stating that it was desirable and expedient to constitute a trust to enable the business to be carried on without break as that would serve the best interest of the minor coparceners and vested the business in himself and his wife as the trustees. 2. Returns were filed for the assessment year 1976-77, claiming that the income should be computed in the hands of the trust and assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries. But the Income-tax Officer was of the opinionthat the creation of the trust shows that the karta and his two minor sons were carrying on the business as an association of persons and he assessed the entire income in that status. 3. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the status of an association of persons adopted by the Income-tax Officer...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. South India Metal Industries and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]102CompCas111(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated March 29, 1984, made in O. S. No. 108 of 1978, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry.2. A. S. No. 203 of 1985 was filed by the plaintiff in suit O. S. No. 108 of 1978, against the said decree dated March 29, 1984, disallowing interest of 9 per cent. on the principal amount of Rs. 63,014.05, from the date of the plaint till the date of payment as well as against the decree of Rs. 10,000 granted in favour of the third defendant in his counter-claim for a sum of Rs. 94,140.3. A. S. No. 1302 of 1989 was filed by the third defendant against the disallowed counter-claim namely a sum of Rs. 84,140 as well as against the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 70,140.60 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of payment.4. For the purpose of convenience the parties are described as per their rank in the suit....
Tag this Judgment!Palraj Vs. Lalchandh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas527(Mad)
Rengasamy, J.1. This appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Thiruchirapalli, C. C. No. 22 of 1993, for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The appellant/complainant has stated in his complaint that the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,000 from him on September 19, 1992, that when he demanded the repayment of the loan, the respondent/accused, without paying the amount, has issued a cheque dated October 19, 1992, which is marked as exhibit P-1 for a sum of Rs. 12,000 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, that he presented the cheque for collection of the amount through the Punjab National Bank on October 21, 1992, but the cheque was returned dishonoured on October 22, 1992. The complainant would further state that he issued a notice to the accused on November 3, 1992, under the original of exhibit P-4, informing the dishonour of the cheque, but the accused has sent a ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Farida Prime Tannery
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)129; [2000]244ITR465(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. The assessee is Farida Prime Tannery, Madras. For the assessment year 1979-80, the assessment was made on September 16, 1982, granting relief under Sections 80J and 80HH to the assessee.2. The assessee appealed on certain other points and the appeal was disposed of by the appellate order dated May 4, 1984.3. The Commissioner of Income-tax sought to revise the assessment under Section 265 on March 27, 1985, for the purpose of withdrawing the relief granted under Sections 80J and 80HH,4. The Appellate Tribunal found that the relief granted under Sections 80J and 80HH being the subject of the assessment order itself, they were capable of being subject to enhancement by the appellate authority and to that extent, they had merged with the appellate order even before the Commissioner could revise the assessment order. Under Section 263, theCommissioner could only interfere with the order of the Income-tax Officer and since it had merged with the appellate order, it was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR149(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. South India Corporation (Agencies) Limited, Madras, is the assessee. The assessment year is 1981-82 for which the accounting period ended March 31, 1981.2. The assessee in the course of assessment proceedings placing implicit reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dtincaii Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]128ITR302(Cal) contended that the provisions for taxation amounting to Rs. 57,86,074 should be deducted from the cost of investments.3. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claims so made entertaining the view that the decision of the Calcutta High Court relied on by the assessee had not reached the stage of finality, in the sense of the same having been agitated before the Supreme Court and pending there.4. When the assessee took up the matter in appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the Income-tax Officer to allow the asses-see's claim for reduction of this amount by following the decision reported in Duncan Broth...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Layland Ltd. Vs. Controller of Imports and Exports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(105)ELT30(Mad)
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the files of third respondent in No. 8/10/REP/87-EPI/4180, dated 9-2-1986 confirming its earlier proceedings in No. 8/10/REP/87-EPI/3630 dated 17-11-1987, that of the second respondent in App/87-86-87/CA/REP-II, dated 29-7-1987 and that of the first respondent in Engg/Ac/811/L/812/Oct. 84 Accts. 7/REP-II, dated 11-11-1986, quashing them and directing the respondents to allow cash compensatory support of Rs. 6,35,200/- against the application dated 22-10-1986 of the writ petitioner.2. The writ petitioner a manufacturer of motor vehicles chassis and spare parts, contracted for export to United Nations, Development Project, Nepal, for the Nepal Transport Corporation, Kathmandu under ODE / 82-83/15156/RAS/81/075 and exported five numbers of Ashok Leyland Hippo vehicles an item members trailers under two invoices. The vehicles were exported on 27-10-1984 under Shi...
Tag this Judgment!South India Structural Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(102)ELT13(Mad)
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. W.P. No. 15240 of 1988 is for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from levying duty of excise under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Heading 7308.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, in respect of structural fabrication work carried out by the petitioner for Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited under Order No. MOD/FC/86, dated 3-1-1987 insofar the petitioner is concerned.2. W.P. No. 15241 of 1988 is for the issue of writ of declaration that Heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is ultra vires and unconstitutional offending Entry 84 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and void and unenforceable insofar as the petitioner is concerned.3. W.P. No. 15242 of 1988 is for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from levying duty of excise under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with Heading 7308.90 of the Central...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »