Chennai Court September 1998 Judgments
Dr. M. Sundaram and ors. Vs. Vice Chancellor, Chennai Medical College ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: (1999)ILLJ102Mad
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners have presented the same, seeking to issue a writ of declaration, declaring that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of retirement as per the University Grants Commission Regulations, namely, 60/62 years as the case may be. Since the averments in all these writ petitions are identical, I am dealing with the same in a common order.2. The petitioners on the date of notification dated July 7, 1998 on which date the Government of India accorded permission for Chennai Medical College and Research Institute, Chennai, as deemed to be University for the purpose of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, had been working in the said institute. On that basis the petitioners have claimed that in view of the said notification, they should be dealt with only as per the University Grants Commission Regulation and not under the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Medical Service, accor...
Tag this Judgment!Pandian Vs. V. Sowrirajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1364
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Pandian is the petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 104 Of 1997 challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, imposed upon him in C.C. No. 644/93 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, confirmed in C.A. No. 54/96 on the file of the District and Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.2. V. Sowrirajan is the petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 438 of 1997 challenging the inadequate sentence imposed upon the respondent Pandian for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in C.C. No,644/93 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur.3. Since the parties are same and these revisions are arising out of a single case, both these revisions are being disposed of by a common order.4. The case of the prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!O.R. Dhanalakshmi Ammal Vs. O.R. Satyamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ690
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 20.10.1982 in O.S.No. 285 of 1981 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.2. The suit is for partition of the suit properties into 8/14 share for plaintiff and 1/14th share for each of the defendants and for separate possession of 8/14th share in items 1 and 2. To direct the appointment of a Commissioner for that purpose and to direct the first defendant to pay to the plaintiff his 8/14th share in the income of items 3 and 4 and for costs, and other reliefs.3. According to the plaintiff, his father Rama Rao his brother Chandrasekaran and himself were members of the joint family, The second defendant executed a release deed and went away from the family. The suit properties are joint family properties. Father Rama Rao died on 6.8.1978. The plaintiff and his father were carrying on business at Madurai, Nagapattinam, the father started a business under the name and style of 'Dhanam Soap W...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Devi Company Vs. N.S.S. Jayaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]100CompCas346(Mad)
V. Bakthavatsalu , J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Erode, in C. C. No. 334 of 1993, datedNovember 25, 1994. The revision petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the respondent/accused alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 1,66,723.50 on January 25,1993, and that when the cheque was presented in the bank on June 30, 1993, the cheque was dishonoured on the ground 'insufficient funds' and that after issuing legal notice, the revision petitioner has filed this complaint.2. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, convicted the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 21,000. It is further ordered that a sum of Rs. 20,000 out of Rs. 21,000 should be paid as compensation to the complainant.3. In this revision, the revision petitioner contended that the trial court ought to have imposed sentence on t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.A. Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR773(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question is as to whether the words 'total income' in sub-paragraph II of paragraph A in Part III of the Finance Act, 1986, which refers to the income of the individual would also include the income of other persons whose income is required to be treated as part of his income under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which occurs in Chapter V of the Income-tax Act, is the question that arises for consideration in this reference.2. Sub-paragraph II of paragraph A of Part III of the Finance Act, 1986, prescribes the rates of income-tax in respect of a Hindu undivided family which at any time during the previous year has at least one member whose total income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1987, exceeds Rs. 18,000.3. Section 64 of the Income-tax Act does not deal with, or refer to the Hindu undivided family. It provides for including the income of spouse, minor child, etc. Section 64 clearly recogniz...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Nagi Reddi Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR431(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had rightly held that the activity of the assessee relating to the exploitation of film distribution rights and realisation of income therefrom is not 'business activity'? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the activity of the trust relating to the exploitation of film distribution rights and realisation of income therefrom is a business carried on by the assessee-trust in the course of actual carrying out of the primary purpose of the trust, and so the provisions of Section 13(1)(bb) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to the case ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has rightly held that the income realised by the assessee-trust by exploitat...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagi Reddi Charity
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)429
ORDERBabu, J.The questions referred to us at the instance of the revenue are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal has rightly held that the activity of the assessee relating to exploitation of film distribution rights and realisation of income therefrom is not 'business activity' ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the activity of the Trust relating to the exploitation of film distribution rights and realisation of income therefrom is a business carried on by the assessee-trust in the course of actual carrying out of the primary purpose of the trust, and the provisions of section 13(1)(bb) of the Act, 1961 are not applicable to the case ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the income realised by the assessee-trust by exploitation of the film distribution rights is part of the corpus of the trust and not income under section 2(...
Tag this Judgment!H. Amalraj Vs. Regina
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC502
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.973 of 1995 for a money decree on the basis of pro-note dated 29.1.1994, said to have been executed by the revision petitioner/defendant.2. Of course, the suit was resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant that he had never executed any pro-note, much less, dated 29.1.1994. Under such circumstances, the revision petitioner took an application in I.A.No.787 of 1994, seeking permission of the court below, namely, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, to send the suit pro-note dated 29.1.1994 for comparison by handwriting expert and for his report.3. However, the same was objected by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that the revision petitioner/defendant is only trying to protract the proceedings, and further contended that, in the events of grant of suchpermission by the court below, the document in question should be examined by the handwriting expert, only in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Antony
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)421; [2000]242ITR363(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest under Sections 139(8) and 217 was not leviable in respect of an assessment made under Section 147. The assessment year is 1976-77.2. The assessee is an individual carrying on real estate business. As he did not file any return for the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice to him under Section 148, in response to which a return was filed admitting an income of Rs. 28,410. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act and in the assessment order interest was also charged under Sections 139(8) and 217 for delay in filing the return and also for non-payment of advance tax in accordance with law.3. On appeal preferred by the assessee the interest so levied was ordered to be deleted by the Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR310(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Grant of Rs. 5 lakhs by the Government to an undertaking owned by it, is according to the Revenue, reimbursement of revenue expenditure and is therefore to be treated as taxable income for the year, while according to the corporation which received the amount, it is a capital receipt earmarked for a specific purpose and shown in the balance-sheet as 'Fairs and Exhibition Fund'.2. During the financial year 1973-74, the Government made available to the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. It issued three Government orders one dated July 10, 1973 another dated November 30, 1973, and finally yet another Government order dated March 28, 1974. While in the first Government order the Government said that the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was given as a grant for conducting a tourist festival, the second Government order clarified that the amount was only an advance which was required to be refunded from out of the profits of the fair, in the third Gove...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »