Chennai Court June 1998 Judgments
Ammaiyappa Gounder (Deceased) and Five Others Vs. Special Tahsildar (L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC316; (1998)IIIMLJ127
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions.2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the W.P. No.2074 of 88 that S.F. No.1474 measuring 4.81 acres of Sanaperatti village, Karur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, belongs to the petitioners. For neighbourhood scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Notification under section 4(1) of the Central Act I of 1894 was issued by the second respondent in G.O.Ms. No.996 dated 4.11.1982. The same was published in the Government Gazette on 24.11.82. The second respondent issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act and it was published in the Government Gazette on 14.11.1984. It is stated that Section 6 of the Act was amended by the Central Act 68/84. Under Section 6(2) the declaration under section 6 must be published in Newspapers and also in the village. According to them, the amending Act received the assent of the President on 5.9.1987 and henc...
Tag this Judgment!V. Annamalai and ors. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR411(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The revision petitions are directed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax under section 34 of the Act. By that order, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as that order did not have the consequence of enhancing any liability of the petitioner or imposing any new liability on him or subject him to any restrictions which did not exist earlier.2. This court, as early as in the year 1965, in the case of N.N. Seshadri-naihan v. State of Madras : [1966]60ITR482(Mad) speaking through a Full Bench has held that an application for revision will not lie to this court against an order made by the Commissioner under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, if that order is not one which can be regarded as prejudicial to the assessee. While so holding, the court took note of the second proviso to Section 34 of the Act which reads as under :'Provided further that an order passed declining to interfere shall not be de...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR899(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has filed this petition for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, to state a case and refer the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, read with Section 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the excess payment of provisional tax paid by the assessee ?'. 2. The order of assessment made in the assessee's case under the Surtax Act for the assessment year 1979-80 was the subject-matter of further proceeding under Section 14 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Surtax Act'), consequent to the revision of the assessee's related income-tax assessment. The said order passed under Section 14 of the Act had resulted in a refund to the assessee of a sum of Rs. 3,72,981. ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Lakshmipathi and anr. Vs. S. Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALD(Cri)117; 1998CriLJ3683
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mr. R. Lakshmipathi and Mr. R. Raghavan, the petitioners herein, the Publisher and Printer of 'DINAMALAR' Tamil daily, arc, the accused in C.C. No. 192 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II,Coimbatore, which was taken on file Under Section 228-A, I.P.C. for having printed and published in their newspaper dated 4-7-1994, disclosing the identity of the victim in the rape case which occurred on 27-6-1994.2. Mr. Ramalingam, the complainant, the respondent herein, filed the above said private complaint against the petitioners being publisher and printer and two others, the Editor and Manager of 'Dinamalar' Tamil daily. After recording sworn statement, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the offence Under Section 228-A, I.P.C. in respect of the petitioners, namely, A-1 and A-3 alone. On the process being issued, the petitioners received the same and approached this Court challenging the issue of process, in this Revision.3. Mr. Panchapag...
Tag this Judgment!Sridhar Vs. the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC449
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by N.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioner Sridhar has been detained as a bootlegger as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in pursuance of an order of detention dated 4.1.1998 passed by the first respondent District Magistrate District Collector, Kancheepuram district, with a view of preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds in the petition. However, he submits that this petition could be disposed of on legal submission on the sole ground that the representation of the detenu had been considered after abnormal delay, without explaining the same. He, relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in dated 15.6.1998 Pandiyan v. State of TamilNadu & Others, H.C.P.No.1053 of 1997 in support of his case.3. On the other hand, first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had made a representat...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Vs. Family Court, Madurai and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC738; II(1998)DMC596
ORDER1. This court in this application filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the husband, the petitioner herein, has been given peculiar opportunity to deal with the prayer which is quite preposterous and monstrous. The prayer is this:-(a) to direct the first respondent Family Court to take my petition dated 5.6.97 presented under Section 125(5), Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.15 of 1984 into file and dispose of it according to law; (b) to direct the first respondent Family Court to forbear from passing orders to execute the order dated 7.2.97 passed in Crl.M.P.No.41 of 1996 filed in M.C.No. 15 of 1984 and to recall the warrant of arrest pending against me passed in Crl.M.P.No.44 of 1996 in M.C.No.15 off 1984 and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass.' 2. At the outset, I may mention that I really do not understand the rationale behind the attitude of the petitioner to implead the Family Court which passed the impugned order. The Registry also asusual without...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamoorthy Kounder Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by Its Superin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC700
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Villupuram in A.S.No. 14 of 1984, dated 30.7.1985, reversing that of the learned District Munsif, Villupuram in O.S.No. 209 of 1982, dated 8.2.1984.2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in this Second Appeal. 3. The plaintiff contended that the suit item is Service Connection No.23 of Purushanoor Village and the second defendant was the original owner, that in or about 1970, the second defendant sold the land and left for some other village and he did not sell the suit service. The second defendant removed the electric motor and installed in another village, after obtaining fresh service connection in his name. The first defendant caused dis-connection notice for non-payment of the current consumption charges in the year 1974 and that the first defendant sent a reminder to the second defendant. At that time, the second defendant approached the plaintiff and his brother and...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Damodaran Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas116(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J. 1. The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to take necessary steps for launching revenue recovery proceedings under Section 48(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, for recovery of a sum of nearly Rs. 87 lakhs from the fourth respondent that is due to the fifth respondent by the fourth respondent, and to pass such further or other orders as this court may deem fit and proper.2. The petitioner is working in Dunlop India Limited, Ambattur, the fourth respondent herein, and he is a member and shareholder of Dun-lop Employees' Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., the fifth respondent herein, and he enrolled himself as a shareholder on May 25, 1982. It is said that as on date, there are 1,700 members and the society has got a share capital of Rs. 35 lakhs. The family welfare deposit lying to the credit of the society amounts to Rs. 26 lakhs and thrift deposit at the credit of the society is Rs. 1.3...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Addison and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR656(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us by the Tribunal, at the instance of the Revenue which question arises out of the Tribunal's order regarding the assessment of the respondent-company under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act for the assessment year 1980-81, is as to 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the capital base under the Surtax Act should not be deducted in proportion to the relief allowed in the income-tax assessment under sections 32A 35B and Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, invoking Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. Rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, reads thus :'4. Where a part of the income, profits and gains of a company is not includible in its total income as computed under the Income-tax Act, its capital shall be the sum ascertained in accordance with rules 1, 2 and 3, diminished by an amo...
Tag this Judgment!V.E. Periannan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR723(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee which arose out of the Tribunal's order dated March 24, 1989, for the assessment year 1985-86 are as follows :'(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the denial of the claim of the petitioner for exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act ? (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the requirement of Section 5(1)(xxxiii)of the Wealth-tax Act with Section 6 of the Income-tax Act was not satisfied by the petitioner ?' 2. The assessee is a karta of the Hindu undivided family and a resident of India. For a period of one year the karta of the Hindu undivided family went abroad for the purpose of taking possession of land which had been held by a company on the winding up of which the land was allotted to the Hindu undivided family. After that he sold the land abroad and re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »