Chennai Court June 1998 Judgments
Prabhakaran Vs. Natesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC396
ORDER1. Mr. Prabhakaran, the petitioner herein, has filed this revision challenging the judgment in C.A. No.80 of 1993 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil, confirming the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') imposed upon him in C.C. No.172 of 1991 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kuzhithurai.2. The case of the prosecution is this:- The petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000 from the complainant on 5.1.1991 and issued a postdated bearer cheque (cash cheque) with the date 5.8.1991 drawn on Union Bank of India, Marthandam Branch for the said amount. Later, when the cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant on 5.8.1991, it was returned with an endorsement 'not arranged for'. Thereupon, on 16.8.1991 the complainant sent a statutory notice to the petitioner demanding the cheque amount. The petitioner sent a reply dated 30.8.1991 denying the issue ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. R.V. Sarojini Devi Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR329(Mad)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is the scope of the proviso to Section 269G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is useful at the outset to set out Section 269G(1) of the Act and the proviso thereunder, Sub-section (2) not being relevant for the purpose of considering the issue that arises in this appeal. '269G. Appeal against order for acquisition.--(1) An appeal may be preferred to the Appellate Tribunal against the order for the acquisition of any immovable property made by the competent authority under Section 269F,--(a) by the transferor or the transferee or any other person referred to in Sub-section (8) of that Section, within a period of forty-five days from the date of such order or a period of thirty days from the date of service of a copy of the order on such person under the said Sub-section, whichever period expires later ; (b) by any other person interested in such immovable property, within forty-five days from the date of such order : Provided that the Appellate Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. R.V. Saroxw Devi Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1998
Reported in: (1999)152CTR(Mad)32
R. JAYASE BABU, JThe issue involved in this appeal is the scope of the proviso to s. 269G of the IT Act. It is useful at the outset to set out s. 269G(1) of the Act and the proviso thereunder. Sub-s. (2) not being relevant for the purpose of considering the issue that arises in this appeal.'269G. Appeal against order for acquisition- (1) An appeal may be preferred to the Tribunal against the competent authority under s. 269F:(a) by the transferor or the transferee or any other person referred to in sub-s. (8) of that section within a period of forty-five days from the date of such order or a period of thirty days from the date of service of a copy of the order on such person under the said sub-section, whichever period expires later.'(b) by any other person interested in such immovable property, within forty-five days from the date of such order:Provided that the Tribunal may, on an application made in this behalf before the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, or, as the case...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, Cauvery Project, Group General M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Mad363; 1998(2)CTC419
ORDER1. Respondent in Arbitration O.P.No.l of 1996, on the file of Additional District Court, Karaikal, is the revision petitioner. 2. The revision is filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Respondent herein entered into three contracts with the petitioner on 20.7.1990, 8.8.1990 and 17.1.1992. All these agreements provide for arbitration in the event of dispute arising between the parties relating to the terms and conditions or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the terms and conditions of the contract. The contracts also provide for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to decide the dispute, who will have to be appointed by the petitioner on the request made by the party. During the progress of work, dispute arose between the parties in regard to certain matters and, therefore, as per registered letter dated 18.3.1993, respondent herein requested the petitioner to appoint an Arbitrator as per the arbi...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subbulakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Through Commissioner and Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC718
ORDER1. The petitioner in this writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records in the proceedings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (respondent No.2), Tirunelveli in A.No.1074 of 1974 dated 7.11.1974 and direct the second respondent to regularise her services with retrospective effect from 17.7.1971 by condoning the break in her service for one day, i.e., 1.4.1973.2. The petitioner was appointed as a Copyist in the court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No.2, Tirunelveli on temporary basis on 17.7.1971. She was ousted from service for want of vacancy on 1.4.1973 and was subsequently reappointed on 2.4.1973. Her services were regularised with effect from 1.4.1974. She was granted annual increment on 1.1.1975. She had submitted an application dated 10.9.1980 to the second respondent requesting to condone the break in her service of one day, i.e., 1.4.1973 and regularise her services with effect from the date of first appointment namely, 17.7.1971.3. The first respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaniyam Real Estates Ltd. Vs. P. Radhakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: [2000]102CompCas378(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J.1. In all these revisions, a common question arises, i.e., whether the District Consumer Forum and a State Consumer Forum has powers to issue a commission to make a local inspection. In all these cases, the consumer forum has appointed a commissioner and asked for the report.2. According to the petitioner, the order of the forum is one without jurisdiction and, therefore, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is liable to be quashed. The argument is that the forum itself is a creation of the statute and when the statute gives the powers anything which is not provided under the statute cannot be allowed by the consumer forum. In this case, the issuance of the commission is not provided under the statute and, therefore, it is one without jurisdiction.3. As against the said contention, the complainant before the consumer forum who is the respondent herein contended that the consumer forum has been specially enacted for speedy disposal of cases and it i...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaniyam Real Estates Ltd. Vs. Triveni Apartments Owners Welfare Asso ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)IIIMLJ205
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. 1. In all these revisions, a common question arises, i.e. whether the District Consumer Forum and a State Consumer Forum has powers to issue a commission to make a local inspection. In all these cases, the Consumer Forum has appointed a Commissioner and asked for the report. 2. According to the petitioner, the order of the Forum is one without jurisdiction and therefore under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is liable to be quashed. The argument is that the Forum itself is a creation of the Statute and when the Statute gives the powers anything which is not provided under the Statute cannot be allowed by the Consumer Forum. In this case, the issuance of the Commission is not provided under the Statute and therefore, it is one without jurisdiction. 3. As against the said contention, the complainants before the Consumer Forum who is the respondent herein contended that the Consumer Forum has been specially enacted for speedy disposal of cases and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Arangasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR563(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The common question that arises for our consideration in all these tax cases is as to whether the incentive bonus and the additional conveyance allowance paid to the Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India form part of their salary and are liable to be assessed to tax as salary. 2. This court in the case of CIT v. E. A. Rajendran : [1999]235ITR514(Mad) , has held that in the absence of any notification issued by the Central Government under Section 10(14)(i) granting exemption the incentive bonus and additional conveyance allowance are liable to be assessed to tax as salary. This court also held that such bonus and the additional allowance are part of the salary of the employee having regard to the terms used in Sections 16 and 17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. A view similar to the one taken by this court has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. A. Choudary v. CIT : [1990]183ITR29(AP) , by the Rajasthan High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Bala Seva Educational and Charitable Trust, Represented by Its Chairma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ449
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the records of the first respondent in Lr.(MS) No. 153 Higher Education dated 7.4.1998 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to accord minority status to the petitioner on the basis of language and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.2. The affidavit is sworn to by the Chairman and the Managing Trustee of the petitioner Trust. It is stated therein that the petitioner has established a College by name 'Shanmuga College for Engineering' at Thirumalai Samudram in Thanjavur District.3. The first Board was constituted with seven members and they all belong to Sanskrit speaking community which is a linguistic minority in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is further stated that all the members who are named in the affidavit were well reversed with Sanskrit language and committed for the propagation of the same. It i...
Tag this Judgment!G. Kalaiselvi Vs. P. Palanisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ138
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of Family Court, Salem, passed in I.A.No. 59 of 1997 in F.C.O.P.No. 405 of 1996, dated 5.2.1998.2. Respondent herein filed F.C.O.P.No. 405 of 1996 for divorce, in which petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 59 of 1997 for getting interim maintenance and litigation expenses, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the affidavit, it was stated that respondent herein is employed in a spinning mill and that he was getting a monthly income of not less than Rs. 2,000, both from the salary and also from rental income from various tenants. She prayed for at least Rs. 2,000 towards litigation expenses.3. Before passing the impugned order, court below took evidence of P.W.1 and also R.W.1, In her evidence, the wife said that her husband is getting a monthly income of not less than Rs. 2,000, and for her maintenance according to the status of the husband, atleast Rs. 1,000 is required...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »