Chennai Court September 1998 Judgments
Jeniston Devaraj N. Vs. Chief General Manager, S.B.i. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1998
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ873Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner, by name N. Jeniston Devaraj, invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, for the relief sought for, to scrap the award passed by the second respondent in I.D. No.35 of 1985, dated April 17, 1989, and to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with effect from July 15, 1981, with all other attendant benefits as if the petitioner had continued as clerk.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 scrapping the impugned award passed by the second respondent.3. On the other hand, the first respondent filed counter rebutting all the material allegations levelled against the respondents one after another and requested the Court to dismiss the matter for want of merit.4. The arguments of learned advocates on both sides are heard. The point for ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1998
Reported in: (2004)192CTR(Mad)168; [2004]268ITR507(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. There are two references before us one by the Revenue and the other at the instance of the assessee. Both the references relate to the assessments made for the year 1976-77 under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Two questions referred at the instance of the Revenue are :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 9,75,485 was allowable as a deduction with reference to the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, read with Section 2(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision made for contribution of Rs. 1,03,251 towards the provident fund maintained by the Government of Tamil Nadu on account of Government employees sent on deputation to the assessee-corporation is an allowable deduction in computing its income ?'3. We shall consider the questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue before we pr...
Tag this Judgment!S.T. Ramalingam Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Vellore, North Ar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC366
ORDER1. The petitioner being common in both the writ petitions, they are taken up together and the following common order is passed.2. The petitioner herein has sought for quashing the proceedings on the file of respondent No.1, dated 10.8.1987 and 17.11.1988, and on the file of respondent No.2, dated 22.8.1989, and also for a consequential direction to the respondents, forbearing them from levying, assessing and demanding or compounding Agricultural Income Tax in respect of total extent of 31 -90 acres of land, in both the writ petitions.3. The petitioner was served with a notice (printed in Tamil in the Post Card and filled up with particulars) dated 25.9.1987, informing that he was in arrears of tax to the tune of Rs. 257.50 for the year 1987-88 and that if the same is not paid on or before 30.9.1987, proceedings will be initiated to recover the same as arrears of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner by his letter dated 8.10.1987 addressed to respondent No.1 h...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Coronation Printing Ink Mfg. Company, H-1, Industrial Estate, Pos ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: [2001]107CompCas192(Mad); 1998(2)CTC548
ORDER1. The first petitioner, the company and the petitioners 2 to 4, the partners have filed this application under section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated in the private complaint at the instance of the respondent/complainant in C.C.No.251 of 1997 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, coimbatore for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. The short facts are:- The first accused is the partnerships Finance Company and the others are its partners. The company is carrying on financing business. The accused approached the complainant company/and requested it to extend revolving purchase bill discounting facility. Accordingly, the complainant extended revolving purchase bill discounting facility to the accused vide Hundi Nos.18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 amounting to Rs.20,00,000. The maturity date for repayment of the above amount was 19.11.1996. In the event of failure to make payment within the stipulated time, the accused have to p...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Vasantha Vs. Smt. Sivanthi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC653
ORDER1. Smt. Vasantha of Malaikodu, Kanniyakumari District, the petitioner herein, on being aggrieved over the judgment acquitting the first respondent in respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has filed this revision before this court. 2. Normally, this court in the revisional jurisdiction would not entertain this petition challenging the acquittal, particularly when the State, the real complainant, has not preferred any appeal before this Court. However, the first informant, the petitioner herein, who is the victim, in order to express her grievance over the judgment of acquittal, would state that the verdict by the trial court is utterly perverse and patently erroneous, which is liable to be set aside. 3. In that view of the matter, this court is desirous to look into the impugned judgment and the materials. The facts are these:- (a) P.W. 1 Vasantha is the resident of Malaikodu, Kanyakumari District....
Tag this Judgment!A and M Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR136(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee complains that the amount sought to be recovered from the assessee as the amount of tax which the assessee had an obligation to pay under Section 194A of the Act, but had not paid, is not payable by the petitioner.2. The assessee was the agent of the third respondent, who had supplied goods to the assessee on credit. It is after expiry of that date, of the credit period, the assessee was required to pay the principal through its banker, the interest incurred by the principal for the period beyond the period of credit, as also a further sum equal to 3 1/2 per cent. of the amount in arrears. The assessee had made such payment of the principal through the banker. The assessee, however, failed to deduct the tax on the amount of interest and the amount described as penalty which amount was paid along with interest through its banker. Such payments were made during the years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85.3. The Assessing Officer, in the year, 1985...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Ratanlal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1999(114)ELT25(Mad)
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The Writ Petitions are for the issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent bearing C. No. VIII/10/25/89-Cus. 2/16/90 and C. No. VIII/10/25/89-Cus. 2/17/90 respectively dated 5-3-1990 and quash the same.2. The case of the petitioner is that they are the importers of Cloves Grade I of 60 bags weighing 5000 Kgs. and 2500 Kgs. respectively. They entered into a contract on 25-11-1988 for the supply of cloves valued at Rs. 3,42,500/- and 1,71,250/- respectively. Invoice dated 25-11-1988 was issued, with the approval of the Department of Commerce, Colombo, Sri Lanka (Ceylon) dated 25-11-1988. The National Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka also issued a certificate of origin dated 25-11-1988 for the import of 60 bags Cloves Grade I weighing 5000 Kgs. and 2500 Kgs. Payments were to be made by means of Bill of Exchange for 1NRS 3,42,500/- and 1,71,250/-. The above consignment was shipped on board TTN-199 under Bill of Lading bearing No. G...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahim Nazeer Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: 1998(104)ELT311(Mad)
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. Though the petitioners are different in each petitions, the respondents are the same and the relief sought for is also identical. Hence, all the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal with the consent of Counsel for either side. Since the averments made in all the affidavits are identical, there is no need to traverse the same individually in detail.2. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the silver, the quantity of which is mentioned in each writ petitions.3. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that they stayed abroad for more than six months and on their short visit to India, they imported silver pursuant to the Notification No. 172/94, dated 30-9-1994 issued by the Govern- ment of India, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). As per the terms of the said Notification, an eligible passenger is entitled to import 100 kgs of silver, if he is a ...
Tag this Judgment!A and M Agencies Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Mad)497
ORDERThe assessee complains that the amount sought to be recovered from the assessee as the amount of tax which the assessee had an obligation to pay under section 197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but had not paid, is not payable by the petitioner.2. The assessee was the agent of the third respondent who had supplied goods to the assessee on credit. It is after expiry of the last date of the credit that the assessee was required to pay to the principal through its banker, the interest incurred by the principal for the period beyond the period of credit, as also a further sum equal to 31 per cent of the amount in arrears. The assessee had made such payment to the principal through the banker. The assessee, however, failed to deduct the tax on the amount of interest and the amount described as penalty which amount was paid along with interest through its banker. Such payments were made during the years 1981-82 to 1984-85.3. The assessing officer, in...
Tag this Judgment!The Tax Recovery Officer, Ii, Sadar Nagpur Vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC677
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of 15th of December, 1982 of the Bombay High Court reported in : [1989]177ITR176(Bom) . Under the impugned judgment the High Court has set aside the attachment levied under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the income-tax Act, 1961 by the Tax Recovery Officer on an immovable property originally belonging to the assessee (since deceased). The property was claimed by the wife of the assessee (since deceased) and his daughter, original respondent No.2 as of their ownership and in their possession in the objections which they had filed against attachment proceedings under Rule 11.2. For the period relevant to the assessment years in question, the assessee was carrying on business as a partner of a firm known as United Capital Construction Company, and also as a Contractor. For the assessment years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 he was assessed to income-tax and the amounts of tax so assessed be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »