Chennai Court September 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.
Jayasreenivasan Vs. the District Collector, Trichirappalli District, T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC126
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the order of Respondent No.1, dated 6.8.1989, in Na. Ka. M.2.122595 of 1985, cancelling the Community Certificate issued to the petitioner.2. The petitioner joined the Madras Customs House, as a Lower Division Clerk, on 13.9.1982. He produced a community certificate, which certified that he belonged to ST community, called 'Kattunaikan'. On 20.5.1985, Respondent No.4 sent a list of SC/ST quota appointees to the SC/ST Commissioner on their request. The District Collector, by his letter, dated 25.12.1985 called for the original community certificate of the petitioner for verification, which was sent on 23.3.1988 from the Deputy Secretary, Social Welfare Department, stating that the petitioner did not belong to the ST community. Respondent No.4 was informed that action was to be initiated against the petitioner by the Collector of Trichy. The Collector, Trichy, vide his letter dated 19.5.1989, addressed to Respondent No.4, sent notice to the petitione...
State Lorry Owners' Federation Vs. the Superintending Engineer (NH)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ29
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. State Lorry Owners' Federation, Tamil Nadu have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Superintending Engineer (N.H) Salem-4 to forbear from taking action any further with his Tender-Cum-Auction Notice No. T4/Toll/Do/98 dated 23.6.1998 published in the Hindu dated 1.7.1998 with reference to the rights of toll collection on motor vehicles passing over the New High Level Bridge across the river Thirumanimuthar at KM 271/2 of N.H.-7 (Bangalore - Salem - Madurai section) near Paramathi-Velur.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-The petitioner-Federation is comprised of 100 lorry owners Association at various places in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. The permits of which having been issued by the authorities of the various States, including Tamil Nadu. The petitioner Federation has been registered under the Societies Act and its Registration No. is Section 60 of 1997. A new high level bridge across the river Thir...
Ayyamperumal Vs. Shaik Dawood Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC146; (1999)IMLJ93
ORDER1. The above revision is directed against the order dated 28.2.1994 made in R.C.A.No.8 of 1990 on the file of the learned Rent control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Tiruchirapalli, confirming the order dated 30.11.1989 made in R.C.O.P.No.292 of 1982 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (3rd Additional District Munsif), Thiruchirapalli.2. The unsuccessful landlord before the authorities below is the revision petitioner in the above revision who filed the above R.C.O.P. seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for an alleged wilful default in the payment of rent for 46 months, from 16.8.1978 to 16.6.1982 at the rate of Rs.100 per month.3. The defence put forth by the respondent tenant for the said wilful default in paying the rent for 46 months for the period from 16.8.1978 to 16.6.1982, as weighed by the authorities below, are:(a) the revision petitioner-landlord was a borrower of money...
S.R. Vetrivel Vs. the Election Officer, O/O. the Dharmapuri District C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC225
ORDER1. In W.P. No.10054 of 1998, petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of 1st respondent in his proceedings No.Nil and dated 11.7.1998 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction, and to further direct respondents 1 to 3 to conduct the election to the 4th respondent-Society in accordance with law.2. By the impugned Order, respondents 1 to 3 approved the voters list of the 4th respondent Co-operative Wholesale Stores. Petitioner, who is one of the Members of the 4th respondent- Society has come to this Court with a grievance that the voters list prepared is illegal and against the provisions of law. According to him, the Society consists of 1211 members. It was decided to hold the elections for the Society on 19.7.1998 at the premises of the Society. Notification of election was published in 'Daily Thanthi' on 3.7.1998. Anticipating the election, petitioner asked for Voters list by a request made on 19.6...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Swamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR363(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue which concerns the assessment year 1977-78 is : 'Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,000 which had been added in the computation of total income from some 'undisclosed sources' representing the value of the excess stock hypothecated to the bank under 'open loan account' ?'2. The assessee had shown the value of the stock in its books of account. The Income-tax Officer thought that the figures relating to the value of the stocks in the book could not be regarded as the correct value of the stocks as the assessee had given a declaration to the bank from which it had obtained overdraft facilities and in its declaration valued the stock at a figure higher than that in the books of the assessee. The Income-tax Officer computed the difference between the value as recorded in the booksand that found in the declaration to the bank and treated the same as income from und...
India Pistons Limited Vs. Asstt. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: 2000(117)ELT545(Mad)
ORDERShivraj Patil, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records of the 1st respondent in C.No. IV/16/106/89, dated 3-7-1989 and quash the same.3. The facts which are considered relevant and necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, in brief, are the following : - The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Madras. It is engaged in manufacturing of certain items which includes Cylinder Liners and Ring Castings. Ring Castings are manufactured out of Pig Iron as one of the raw materials. The goods manufactured in the petitioner's factory are subject to levy of Excise Duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Government of India introduced a scheme called 'Modvat'. The said scheme was introduced with an intention to avoid the cascading effect of levies of Central Excise Duty on manufactured goods.4. The petitioner-Com...
R. Thulasidoss Vs. Rani Alias Rajalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ239
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The decree-holder in R.CO.P. No. 16 of 1989 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Karur is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. The above revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,2. One Govindarajulu had 8 sons and one daughter. His wife is Muthialu Ammal. The sons are G. Ramachandran, G. Venkatesan, G. Udayavar, G. Ramanujam, G. Leelakrishnan, G. Umakandan alias Munusamy, G. Baskar, G. Santhanam and G. Jayaraman. His daughter is Krishnaveni. The first respondent in this revision is the daughter of Krishnaveni,3. The decree-holder is the adopted son of the said G. Ramaehandran. The decree-holder filed revision petition against respondents 2 to 5 and obtained an order of eviction. The same was confirmed in appeal and revision also. When the proceedings was initiated for eviction, the first respondent herein filed an obstruction petition under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure to declare that the eviction decr...
The Member-secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ369
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P.No. 1643 of 1990 arises out of O.S.No. 1948 of 1998. C.R.P.No. 1644 of 1998 arises out of O.S.No. 1612 of 1998. Both C.R.P.Nos. 2205 and 2206 of 1998 arise out of O.P.No. 172 of 1998.2. In all these cases; the parties are same and the revision petitioners are also same. In Koyambedu market for collecting parking fees, the same was entrusted to the respondent in all these revisions on the basis of the agreement dated 18.2.1997. It is for the period of one year from 18.2.1997 to 18.2.1998. The total amount payable is Rs. 1,04,20,000. Since the respondent committed default in payment, show cause notice was issued. Immediately the respondent filed original application before this Court as O.P.No. 655 of 1997 invoking Arbitration clause and interim orders obtained and on that basis continued the collection. On 18.2.1998, the said application was dismissed. The main reason for dismissing the application was the licence period also came to an end. On 19.2.1998,...
Cit Vs. Pioneer Press (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1998
Reported in: (2001)170CTR(Mad)152
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.Revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal which is fair and just and which merely upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who had accepted the assessees submission that it had not made a claim before the Income Tax Officer for deduction under section 80HH of the Income Tax Act as according to the computation made by the assessee in its return, the income was not sufficient to absorb the deduction, but in view of the disallowance made by the Income Tax Officer, there was scope for that deduction to be absorbed and, therefore, the assessee should be permitted to make its claim for those deductions. The Income Tax Officer was directed to consider that claims and allow the claims to the extent admissible in law. By that order, the interest of revenue was not in anyway prejudiced. The assessee was not conferred any undue benefits. The assessee was merely enabled to obtain a benefit which the law conferred. The reason for not making the claim for deduction ...
Multichannel (India) Limited, Rep. by Its Director, 301, Sheetal Lehre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC689; (1998)IIIMLJ708
ORDERJudgment pronounced by C. Shivappa, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.6.1998 passed on O.A.No.254 of 1998 in C.S.No.375 of 1998, by the learned single Judge on the original jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The appellant as plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for a declaration that the letter sent by the respondent No.2, dated 4.5.1998, terminating the contract (Contract for Time-Sales) in respect of the telecast of two serials, namely, 'Balachander Chinna Thirai' and 'Marmadesam', as illegal and void. The second relief which has been sought for is a consequential declaration that the agreement dated 30.5.1997 entered into between the appellant and the respondent No.2 is valid and subsisting in respect of the above-mentioned serials and further consequently that the appellant is exclusively entitled to sell the free commercial time allocated to the abovesaid Tele Serials on any Television Channel. In the light of the abovesaid prayers, consequential relief of p...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »