Chennai Court July 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.
P. Sugunan Vs. the Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai-8 and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC268
ORDERJudgment pronounced by N.K. Jain, J. 1. The father of the detenu Chinna @ Rajnikanth, has challenged the impugned order of detention passed on 8.8.1997 by the first respondent, whereby the detenu has been labelled as 'Goonda' under Act. 14 of 1982, with a view to preventing the detenu from indulging in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and health. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenu himself has filed H.C.P. No.852 of 1997 challenging the order of detention dt. 8.8.1997 which is impugned in this petition, also on three grounds, viz., that he was kept in illegal custody, that two F.I.R. have been made simultaneously against him and that he was on bail, while passing the order of detention, whereas the detaining authority has mentioned that he was in custody, while passing the order of detention. 3. This Court by order dated 26.11.1997, repelling the arguments of the learned counsel for the detenu dismissed the petition, hol...
Saravanan Vs. G. Sampath
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ934; 1998(2)CTC282; 1998(4)Crimes561
ORDER1. Both these Revisions are being disposed of by a common order, since the parties as well as the issues before this Court are same.2. The facts in Crl.R.C. No.418 of 1997 are these: The petitioner/accused issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.5,000 dated 25.7.92 to one Selvam. He made over the same to one Annadurai. Thereafter, the accused received the cheque from the said Annadurai and handed over the same to the complainant/respondent herein towards discharge of his liability on havingpurchased silk from him. The cheque was presented and the same was dishonoured. Again on the instructions of the petitioner/accused, the complainant presented the cheque after three months. This time also the cheque was dishonoured, as funds was insufficient. Since the amount was not paid even on notice, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial, the trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,...
K. Bhagavatheeswaran Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas625(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since the parties to both these writs and also the point involved herein are common, both these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed W. P. No. 5925 of 1989, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call forthe records of the first respondent in Notification No. 1-CA(7)/3/89, dated January 13, 1989, and to quash the same and he has filed W. P. No. 5926 of 1989, seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in Notification No. 1-CA(7)/158/87, dated May 25, 1987', and to quash the same.3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioner herein has filed separate affidavits wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file these writ petitions and prayed that the writ petitions may be ordered as prayed for. Per contra, on behalf of the first...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. New India Maritime Agencies (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR344(Mad)
Subbulakshmy, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company by way of property tax, urban land tax and towards maintenance of the properties owned by the company andgiven as residential accommodation to its directors should not be considered for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1982-83 ?'The Income-tax Officer took a stand that the expenditure incurred by the assessee amounts to perquisite to the directors to whom the residential accommodation is provided. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowance. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that no additional benefits are conferred on the directors, when the assessee-company pays the property ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR929(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue wants to blow hot and cold. It contended in a case concerning the same assessee in respect of an earlier assessment year that the investment held by it is stock-in-trade. It now wants to contend to the contrary and claim that investment made by the assessee-bank is not stock-in-trade. 2. The contention of the Revenue with regard to the nature of the investment made by the bank was examined in an elaborate order made by a Bench of this court in Tax Cases Nos. 359 and 360 of 1986 and 1259 of 1987. This court, after considering the nature of the activity of the bank, the effect of Section 24 of the Banking Regulation Act and the decisions of the Privy Council and of other High Courts, viz., the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1940] 8 ITR 635, that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. CIT : [1985]151ITR703(AP) , as also the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Jayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR773(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The proviso to Section 64(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been invoked by the assessee. While the Revenue contends that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of that proviso. The Tribunal has found that the assessee along with a partner is in the business of running a printing press wherein the husband of the assessee one Ramalingam was employed as manager on a salary of Rs. 8,400 for the assessment year 1982-83 and which was Rs. 17,200 for the year 1983-84 ; that the business was carried on initially as a proprietary concern of the assessee wherein her husband had been working as manager by receiving a salary and before his employment in the said business, he had been working from the year 1965 in a similar business elsewhere, on salary. Ramalingam thus had a long experience in this line of business first under others, later as a manager of his wife's business and still later as the manager of the business run by the firm in which his wife, along wit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Palaniappa Transport
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR187(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Three questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue which relate to the assessment year 1973-74. The questions referred are the following :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there has been a dissolution of the partnership on February 29, 1972, and not a mere retirement of partner, Sri S. Manickam ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that even if it is construed that Sri S. Manickam had only retired from the firm on February 29, 1972, the legal position would be the same as applicable to a case of dissolution of the partnership ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's decision that there is no liability under Section 41(2) of the Act in respect of buses taken over by the partner Shri S. Manickam is correct ?'2. Counsel agree that the first tw...
Management of Sarabai M. Chemicals Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ1278Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/management has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms. No. 1169, dated June 20, 1989, of the first respondent, referring an industrial dispute over the non-employment of the third respondent for adjudication to the second respondent and to quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the writ petitioner/management 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 this writ petition may be allowed as prayed for. The respondents have not filed any counter. However, they have argued the matter.3. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I have perused the relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the variou...
Chief Engineer, T.N. Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Govindaraj M.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)IILLJ1435Mad
M.S. Liberhan, C.J.1. By consent, the main appeal itself is taken-up for final hearing.2. The enquiry report was read in Court and the learned counsel for the parties accepted it to be correct. It is not disputed that there is no specific finding by the Enquiry Officer with respect to the charge of theft against the respondent-workman on the basis of any evidence on record. He was acquitted by the Criminal Court from the charge of theft. The only finding returned by the Enquiry Officer with respect to the charge of theft was an inference drawn by him from the fact that the respondent-workman was arrested and an F.I.R. was registered against him. It cannot be disputed that there arrest or launching of an F.I.R. by itself cannot either constitute an evidence or proof or a circumstance, based on which a person can be found to be guilty of the charge. It was accepted at the Bar that the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer on the charge of theft attributed to the delinquent workman cann...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. New India Maritime Agencies (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)50
MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, J.:The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee- companyby way of property tax, urban land tax and towards maintenance of the properties owned by the company arid given as residential accommodation to its directors should not be considered for the purpose of disallowance under s. 40(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1982-83 ?'The ITO took a stand that the expenditure incurred by the assessee amounts to perquisite to the directors to whom the residential accommodation is provided. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that no additional benefits are conferred on the directors, when the assessee- company pays the property tax, urban land tax and also incurs expenditure on the maintenance...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »