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.
The TuticorIn Trading and Credit Corporation Private Ltd., by Its Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC685
ORDER1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli in A.S.No. 21 of 1985 in confirming that of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin in O.S.No.35 of 1982. 2. The plaintiff, the Tuticorin Trading and Credit Corporation Private Ltd. is the appellant in the present second appeal. 3. The suit was filed on a chit transaction claiming a sum of Rs. 21,737.06 as due from the chit. The defendant raised mainly two defences viz., that he did not subscribe to the chit transaction and that the suit was barred by limitation. While the trial Court upheld both the objections of the defendant, the lower appellate Court agreed with the plaintiff's claim and held that the defendant had subscribed to the chit transaction and that he has also committed default. However on the question of limitation, the lower appellate Court agreed with the objection of the defendant that the suit was barred by limitation and hence the present second appeal by the plaintiff. ...
Feena Petro Products Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corpora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas205(Mad)
S.S. Subramani J.1. I will first deal with W. P. No. 9843 of 1998, filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to suspend all the recovery or take over proceedings initiated by respondents Nos. 1. and 2 against the petitioner herein, in view of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, in pursuance of the application filed before the third respondent by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act, and pass such further or other orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner-company is a public limited company promoted by the deponent and his brothers. It is involved in the processing of LPG. It also carries out importing, storing and distribution of LPG. In 1995, the Central Government announced the liberalisation policy in the field of LPG. In order to satisfy the wide gap in demand and s...
T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR420(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee has petitioned the court to call for the reference of four questions which have been proposed by the assessee. The assessment year is 1987-88. The first question proposed by the assessee concerns the correctness of the order of the Tribunal in adopting the annual value as noted in the municipal register as the annual value of the property owned by the assessee. The annual value in the municipal register is really of no material relevance for determining the annual value ; for the purposes in case of buildings situated in cities and in other areas where the rent control legislation is in force, it is only the determination made in accordance with the provisions of the rent control law that is to be regarded as the amount that the landlord can reasonably expect to receive from the tenant of the building owned by him. The assessee did not further any valuation (sic). The Tribunal was not bound to accept the entry in the municipal register as representi...
Management, Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Pra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1377Mad; (1999)IMLJ416
N.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner management challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras dated November 1, 1998, whereby the first respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with half back wages from August 20, 1986 with other attendant benefits within one month from the date of publication of the award.2. It is alleged that the first respondent was appointed as a conductor on September 18, 1975 with the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on September 7, 1976 for four days and then removed from service on March 11, 1977 and thereafter reinstated. Again the first respondent was terminated from the service of the petitioner on June 28, 1984 and he filed an approval petition in No. 233 of 1984 before the second respondent, since I.D. No. 62 of 1982 has been pending.3. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely considering the fact that the employee had sufficiently suffered since 1984, and without coming t...
Management of Pattukottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation Ltd., Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ416
ORDERN.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner-management challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras dated 1.11.1988, whereby the first respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with half back wages from 20.8.1986 with other attendant benefits within one month from the date of publication of the award.2. It is alleged that the first respondent was appointed as a conductor on 18.9.1975 with the petitioner and he was placed under suspension on 7.9.1976 for four days and then removed from service on 11.3.1977 and thereafter reinstated. Again the first respondent was terminated from the service of the petitioner on 28.6.1984 and he filed an approval petition in No. 233 of 1984 before the second respondent, since I.D.No. 62 of 1982 has been pending.3. The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that merely considering the fact that the employee had sufficiently suffered since 1984, and without coming to the specific finding and even upho...
K. Thangavelu Udayar Vs. V. Ramalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ635
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Both these revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Election Tribunal which dismissed the Election Petitions. C.R.P.NO.1730 of 1998 arises from Election O.P.No. 12 of 1996, and C.R.P.No. 1761 of 1998 arises from Election O.P.No. 73 of 1996, on the file of Principal District Judge, Tiruchi. In Election O.P.No. 12 of 1996, petitioner wanted to declare the election of the 1st respondent therein who was declared elected as Chairman to the Panchayat Union Council of Veppanthattai, as invalid. In Election O.P.No. 73 of 1996, petitioner therein wanted a declaration that the election of the respondent as member of a ward, is invalid.2. In both these election petitions, two grounds are raised, namely, (1) Respondent's name is not included in the electoral roll in the Ward for which he filed his nomination and, therefore, the acceptance of his nomination by the Returning Officer was not proper. (2) The second ground is ...
Commisioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1998
Reported in: (2001)162CTR(Mad)525
R. Jayasimha Babu, 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, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the registration fee receipts should be treated as agricultural receipts ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the whole of the amount of compounding fee received by the assessee during the year constitute agricultural income which is exempt from taxation under section 10(1) read with section 2(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961'. ?The assessment year is 1977-78.2. The assessee is the Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Ltd., Trichy, which raises plantations such as eucalyptus, cashew and casuraina and sells the plantations, products. The registration fee levied by it at the rate of Rs. 30 and Rs. 20 per annum respectively, was for registering the names of the contractors intending to bid in the auction for sale conducted by th...
G. Rajaram Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Deputy Commissioner of Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC626
ORDER1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit O.S.SR.No.20260 of 1988 on the file of the learned 2nd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and the appellant in A.S.No.461 of 1988, on the file of the learned 11th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant in the above second appeal.2. The petitioner in the above revision and the appellant in the above second appeal are one and the same.3. The above revision and second appeal arise on a common cause of action under the following facts and circumstances:Admittedly, there was an arrears of sales tax to the tune of Rs.50,000 by one Mr.Anbu, from whom the revision petitioner herein/the appellant in the second appeal had purchased the suit property, which was sought to be brought for auction under revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the revision petitioner/appellant herein, for the recovery of the arrears of the said sales tax of his predecessor in title of the said property. Of course, the respondent herein...
D. Syed Amanullah Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR698(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee claims the benefit under Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while he is gainfully employed as a senior assistant in the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Madurai Branch. Section 80U(1)(ii) of the Act provides that in computing the total income of an individual, being a resident, who, as at the end of the previous year is subject to or suffers from a permanent physical disability other than blindness, which has 'the effect of reducing substantially his capacity to engage in a gainful employment or occupation' the deduction provided for in Section 80U shall be allowed. It is the assessee's own case that he is indeed gainfully employed holding a post of senior assistant. Despite the deformity mentioned the certificate issued by a medical practitioner, viz., the deformity Over the right wrist and fingers, he is able to do his work as an assistant in the bank and earn the salary attached to that post. It is evident that this deformity had not the ef...
Smt. Radha Gajapathi Raju and Smt. Urmila Prakash Vs. District Valuati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR704(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since in both these cases, the subject-matter involved and the respondents are common, both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the concerned parties.2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners herein by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of certiorari call for the records of the first respondent in proceedings No. DVO/MDS/ WT/23 of 1989-90 and DVO/MDS/WT(22) of 1989-90, dated January'20, 1990, and to quash the same.3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioners have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file these writ petitions and requested this court to allow these writ petitions as prayed for.4. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, a common counter affidavit has been filed rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after the other and ultimately requested this court to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »