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.
Wipro Finance Ltd. Represented by Authorised Officer Vs. I.i.S.C. Engi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ570
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The applicant has filed this application to review the order of this Court dated 27.3.1997 in Application Nos. 1106, 1109, 169 and 2800 of 1996.2. The applicant has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,94,910 with interest at 36% p.a., and for a direction directing the respondents to deliver the possession of the schedule mentioned properties to the applicant.3. Pending the suit, applications have been filed. The relief sought for in Application No. 1108 of 1996 is for the attachment of the property mentioned in the schedule to the Judge's summons.4. Application O.A. No. 169 of 1996 had been filed for the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to take possession of the schedule mentioned machineries.5. Application No. 1109 of 1996 was filed seeking police protection for the Advocate-Commissioner.6. The respondents herein filed Application No. 2800 of 1996 to raise the order of attachment before judgment dated 19.3.1996 and Application No. 2801 of 199...
V. Baskaran Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)62TTJ(Mad)698
ORDERAbdul Razack, J.M.This appeal is filed by the assessee before this Tribunal on 20-10-1997 challenging the order dated 30-9-1997 passed under section 144 read with section 168BC/158BD computing undisclosed income at Rs. 9,60,84,250 raising a tax demand at 60 per cent at Rs. 5,76,50,550. During the pendency of the appeal petition under rule 35A of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 was filed on 11-2-1998 praying for stay of demand (which we have recorded above) till the disposal of the appeal.2. The stay petition was posted for hearing on several occasions and at one of the hearings, the Senior Departmental Representative, J. Suresh, submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable and has to be dismissed in limine for failure to pay the tax on the admitted returned undisclosed income of Rs. 18,04,100 on which admitted tax worked out to Rs. 9,52,460 which was not paid by the appellant- assessee along with the returned income or even till date. The Senior De...
A. K. Thiagarajan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)379
ORDERR. JAYASIMILA BABU, J.The question revised is common in all these tax cases, though the petitioners are different. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal is:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the increase in the salary by Rs. 15,000 received from the firm M/s RM. Appavu Chettiar Sons, Madurai, by the respective Karthas for their individual services rendered to the said firm, was assessable in the hands of the assessee HUF?'2. The admitted facts, as set out in the statement of the case are: The assessees are six HUFs whose Kartas are partners in a firm M/s RM Appavoo Chettiar & Sons, Madurai. The firm paid remuneration to the Kartas as there was provision for such payment being made in the partnership deed. There was one other partner in the firm who was not paid any remuneration. Upto the asst. yr. 1980-81 the salary paid to them was at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per year. That was increased to R...
Ramu Hosieries, Re. by Its Sole Proprietor Mr. M. Marugeshan Vs. Ramu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC230
ORDERJudgement pronounced by C. Shivappa, J.1. The appellant herein has filed CS No. of 1996, SR No.6107 to 6116 along with Application No.1215. of 1996 under Clause 12 of Letters Patent for leave to sue before this Court on account of substantial part of cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, since the appropriate office of Trade Mark Registry with respect to the appellant's registered trade mark is in Madras an secondly, Eenadu carrying respondent's use of impugned trade mark in the course of its advertisement is circulated in the city of Madras: The order refusing leave to sue is impugned in this appeal. 2. A memo has been filed by the respondent stating that the some of their business has been changed subsequently and there is no infringement as alleged and as such, there is no cause of action. The learned senior counsel Mr. U. N. R. Rao, appearing for the appellant submitted that the similar question often arises for consideration and the learned Judg...
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Madras Vs. Mrs. Sakuntala Ganapathy Rao P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC170
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by C. Shivappa, J.1. The petitioner herein, namely, The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, has challenged the order passed in O.P. No. 274 of 1991 dated 18.9.1991. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Judge has no jurisdiction to interfere with the case of the consent award modifying the interest portion from 19% to 12% and that he has erred in not granting interest for the pre- reference period and restricting the interest claim only from the date of the award.2. Along with the Memorandum of Appeal, the petitioner herein has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal.3. It is a general principle in the relevant rules/Statutes that an action against a judgment must be brought promptly when once the aggrieved party becomes aware of the existence of the judgment against him. Where the party is not under disability when he was aware of the judgment, the running of the time will not b...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amalgamations Ltd. (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: [2000]245ITR809(Mad)
C. Shivappa, J.1. Heard both learned counsel. We find that the case involves 'no substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence, the prayer for the issue of a certificate is rejected. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed....
Chelliah Vs. Yesuvadial
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)ALT(Cri)47; 1999CriLJ1013
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Whether the second complaint is maintainable after the first complaint on the same set of facts referred to as 'mistake of fact' by the police and the same has been received and recorded by the learned Magistrate as 'lodged' ?2. Of course, this question has been analysed and answered by this Court on various occasions in various angles. But, now, the very same question would be considered and answered in a different angle.3. Chelliah, the petitioner herein, was convicted for the offence under Section 354 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 1 month in C.C. No. 219/93 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. The conviction was confirmed in the appeal as well in C.A. No. 52/94 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, though there is some modification in the sentence.4. The case of the prosecution is this. On 15-11-91 at about 1.30 midnight, when...
Eswari Industries, Shencottai and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Inves ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ1
Manmohan Singh Liberhan, C.J.1. The gravamen of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that by the impugned decree and judgment, the Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, ordering the guarantors to pay a sum of Rs. 2,16,000, while exercising the powers under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have no jurisdiction to pass a money decree. The order dated 24.6.1996, passing the decree, cannot be sustained. For the para meteria reason, the order of the Hon'ble single Judge dated 3.11.1997, in which the order of the Additional District Judge referred to earlier affirmed, cannot be sustained. Reliance on the decision in G.S.F.C. v. Katson Manufacturing Company : [1979]1SCR372 and Everest Industrial Corporation v. G.S.F.C. : [1987]3SCR607 was placed.2. It would be expedient at this stage to note down the provisions of Section 31 of the Act as amended by the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 which runs thus:...
Jayanthi, Shown as CatherIn Jasintha in the Fir Vs. State by Inspector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC77; (1998)IIIMLJ463
ORDER1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of parties.2. The petitioner herein seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the Dean, Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur, Director of Medical Education, Madras-5 and State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Commissioner and Secretary, Health, Fort St. George, Madras- 9, respondents 2, 3 and 4 herein to issue CRRI Completion and MBBS Provisional Pass Certificate so that the petitioner can register her name with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, Madras, the 5th respondent herein. The following factual panorama would help to understand the controversy:-3. The petitioner claims to be belonging to the scheduled castes. She has been declared passed in MBBS Course and has also completed her House Surgeon Course in the year 1994. However, the course completion certificate is being refused on the ground that there is a criminal case pending against her vide: Crime No.5 of 1996 for the commission of offences under Section 465, 468, 471, IPC on the ground that she h...
Emcete and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR350(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since in all these writs, the point involved and also the parties are common, all these writ petitions 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 the present writ petitions and seeks for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the first respondent in C. No. 217-1/33 of 1986-87, etc., dated September 7, 1988, and September 13, 1988, respectively, as illegal and without jurisdiction and also to direct the respondents to delete the disallowance of interest under Section 40A(8)/58(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. 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 the present writ petitions and requested this court to allow the writ petitions as prayed for. On behalf of the respondents though no counter affidavit was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »