Chennai Court September 1998 Judgments
Appu Hotels Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR415(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the appropriate authority to grant to the petitioner a no-objection certificate under Section 269UL of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the property comprising 2374/75000 undivided share of the land situated in No. 8, West Cott Road, Royapettah, Madras, bearing survey No. 904, R. S. 1279 and the office No. 3 in the first floor of the building known as 'Gokhale Bhavan' with a sale plinth area of 2,374 square feet pursuant to the agreement of sale entered into by the petitioner and Royapettah Benefit Fund Ltd., the second respondent, dated June 6, 1990.2. The petitioner filed Form No. 37-1 seeking a no-objection certificate from the authority on June 20, 1990. The petitioner also produced several documents along with that form. The appropriate authority just before the expiry of two months from that date, on August 16, 1990, addressed a long letter to the petitioner stating ...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Ansari and anr. Vs. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: (2001)IIILLJ1367Mad
Padmanabhan, J.1. In the above writ appeals, notice of motion was ordered. The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance through their counsel. Excepting the factual difference between the two appeals and exercising their options and the materials being connected therein, all other contentions arc common. Learned counsel appearing for either side submitted common arguments and hence the two writ appeals are disposed by this common judgment.2. W.A. No. 368 of 1998, has been preferred by one A.K. Ansari aggrieved by the dismissal of this Writ Petition No. 8181 of 1996 praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent/Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., and quash the order Ref. No. 24/133/96, dated May 7, 1996, and issue mandamus directing the respondent to pay pension under the Bharat Overseas Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995, with effect from November 1993 and award exceptional costs.3. W.A. No. 369 of 1998...
Tag this Judgment!Moorco (India) Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ247Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner, invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, for the relief sought for to scrap the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 467, dated March 22, 1990.2. In support thereof, he filed an affidavit, wherein he narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the writ petition and requested the Court to allow the writ petition.3. On the other hand, the fifth respondent filed counter rebutting all the material allegations against the respondent one after another and requested the Court to dismiss the matter for want of merit.4. The arguments of the learned advocateson both sides are heard.5. The point for consideration is, as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow the writ petition or not?6. I have gone through the material documents available on record, particularly with regard to the contents of the affidavit, counter, besides the contents of the impugned G.O. and also the relevan...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesan Vs. Madheswari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ914
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The order granting maintenance of Rs. 300/- to the first respondent, wife and Rs. 200/- each to the second the third respondents, the children from the date of application i.e. from 7-3-1994 passed in M.C. No. 4 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyar is challenged by the husband, the petitioner herein in this revision before this Court.2. The facts are the following:-The first respondent married the petitioner on 6-3-1985 in the presence of elders in the Sivan koil at Kubbampatti. Out of the said wedlock the second respondent was born on 20-3-1986. Ex. P1 is the birth register. The third respondent was born on 22-6-1988. The birth register is Ex. P2. Though initially they lived happily, the petitioner began to harass the wife asking her to get money and jewels from her parents' house. Since the said unlawful demand was not complied with, the respondents were beaten and driven away from the matrimonial home. Six months prior to this applica...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oxygen Employees' Union and Ors. Vs. BOC India Ltd. (Formerly I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)IILLJ1248Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above Writ Appeal and the writ petitions were taken up together for final disposal.2. Mr. N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appeared for the appellant in W.A.No. 254/1998, W.P.Nos. 479/1998, 8503/1997. Mr. A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel appeared for the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 254/1998 for M/s. Gupta & Ravi. Mr. S.Ramasubramanian, Senior Counsel appeared for Mr. S.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel in W.P.No. 8503/1997, Ms. R.Vaigai appeared for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 4270/1997, 3117/1997 & 3233/1998, Mr. G.Subramanian, Senior Counsel for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co. appeared for the respondents in W.P.No. 4270/1997, 3117/1997 and 3233/ 1998.3. With the consent of counsel appearing for either side, the main Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions were taken up for disposal.4. The Writ Appeal No.254/1998 has been preferred by Indian Oxygen employees Union represented by its General Secretary being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated January 28, 1998 made in W.P.No. 180...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishnaswamy Vs. the Chairman, State Bank of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ130
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition, in W.P. No. 5065 of 1997, seeking to quash the proceedings of the respondent dated 15.3.1997 in which the petitioner has been punished by reduction in basic pay by one stage.2. According to the petitioner, he was called upon to explain with reference to his lapse as mentioned in the letter dated 9.1.1991 of the respondent's Tiruchi branch. In reply to the said letter, the petitioner sent a reply to the Regional Manager on 15.2.1991. While the same is pending. On 6.11.1991 the petitioner sent a letter requesting the Chief General Manager to accept his voluntary retirement from service, with retirement benefits as applicable to him. He has also requested to treat the same as three months' notice, from the date of the said letter. Since the period of three months was over in February, 1992, and no order passed by the respondent, rejecting his request, the petitioner has come forward with the plea that he has already r...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnathayee Ammal Vs. Mottaya Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ630
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This civil revision petition is against an order of th6 learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamali passed in I.A.No. 1086 of 1995 in O.S.No. 1253 of 1990, dated 24.9.1996 condoning the delay of 526 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex pane decree dated 11.2.1994 passed in the above suit.2. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein and the second defendant is the respondent herein. The parties are referred to as described in the suit. The plaintiff filed a suit for maintenance against her husband, the first defendant and she also prayed for a charge over the suit properties standing in the name of the second defendant for due payment of maintenance amount. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties were alienated by her husband in favour of the second defendant with a view to defeat her maintenance claim in the suit. There is no dispute that summons in the suit were served on both the defendants and the second defendant was not present in the cou...
Tag this Judgment!The National Council of Y.M.C.as. of India Represented by Its General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ133
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2417 of 1998 arises against the grant of ad-interim injunction in I.A. No. 11940 of 1998 in O.S. No. 5083 of 1998, on the file of XI Assistant, Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, C.R.P. No. 2418 of 1998 also arises against an ad-interim order passed by the very same Court in I.A. No. 10962 of 1998 in O.S. No. 4721 of 1998. Both these revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the person affected by the interim Order is the same, viz., National Council of Y.M.C.As. of India represented by its General Secretary 2. In C.R.P. No. 2417 of 1998, the impugned Order has been passed in I.A. No. 11940 of 1998. In that I.A., petitioner Plaintiff (Dr. C. Raja Singh Warrior) prayed for the grant of an-interim in-junction restraining-National Council of Y.M.C.As. from convening the Executive Committee Meeting at Y.M.C.A. College of Physical Education, Nandanam, Chennai-35. In that case, petitioner claims that he has been elected as Reg...
Tag this Judgment!R. Srinivasan Vs. M/S. Muthusamy Chettiar and Sons, Paddy, Rice and Gr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC488
ORDER1. The defendant, who has been successful before the trial Court and unsuccessful before the first appellate court, is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent instituted the suit in O.S. No.405 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi against the appellant herein for the recovery of the amount due on accounts. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit claim is neither true nor correct and that the defendant isnot liable to pay the suit claim. The trial court also held that the suit claim is barred by limitation. On appeal by the plaintiff, the first appellate court found that there were dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,533.6l. On the question of limitation also, the first appellate Court held that the suit claim is not barred by limitation. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.2. The parties in this second appeal will be referred as...
Tag this Judgment!Beardsell Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)65TTJ(Mad)288
ORDER--Book profits computed under s. 115J without considering revaluation of investmentRatio & Held:The power of revision under section 263 can be exercised by the Commissioner when the following factors co-exist : (a) there should be a proceeding under the Act, (b) in such proceeding the assessing officer must have passed an order; and (c) the Commissioner should consider that the said order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee's authorised representative has not challenged the lacking of any of the above factors in the order passed under section 263 except that on merit that the loss on revaluation of investments and reserve for doubtful debts could not be added in the profits for the purpose of section 115J of the Income Tax Act. From the order the Commissioner has given the specific finding after hearing the assessee-company that the assessment order is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Thus, the order of the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »