Chennai Court January 1999 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.
Kamak Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: [2001]251ITR525(Mad)
T. Meenakumari, J. 1. The writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the petitioner in C. No. 1241-11/42 to 44 of 1988 dated November 2, 1989, passed under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently direct the first respondent to grant relief in respect of interest claimed for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84.2. The assessee is a company. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that for the assessment year 1981-82, the petitioner has filed a return of income on October 30, 1981, and similarly for the assessment years 1982-85 and 1983-84 the petitioner filed the return of income. The appeals were preferred under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act to set aside the assessment. Thereafter, the revisions were also filed. It has been contended that the assessee did not claim interest taken from the bank. In the revisions filed the assessee claimed that the petitioner's unit was a sick unit and t...
Protos Engineering (Private) Ltd. Vs. First Additional Labour Court an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ116Mad
S. Jagadeesan, J.The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order rejecting its application for condoning the delay of 17 days in filing the petition for setting aside the ex parte order passed by the first respondent-Labour Court.2. The second respondent herein raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 130 of 1983, against the decision of the petitioner for limiting the maximum dearness allowance payable to the employee as per their notice issued under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After several hearings, the petitioner was set ex parte on September 19, 1988. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to October 11, 1988 and October 26, 1988 and finally the award was passed on October (sic) 1988. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 960 of 1988, on October 21, 1988 for setting aside the petition ex parte, dated September 19, 1988. The said petition was returned on the ground that supporting affidavit was not filed along with the petition. Thereafter, the applic...
Kamak Plastics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN273(Mad)
ORDERThe writ petitions are for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the petitioner in C. No. 1241-II/42 to 44 of 1988 dated 2-11-1989, passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, consequently, direct the first respondent to grant relief in respect of interest claimed for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84.2. The assessee is a company. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that for the assessment year 1981-82, the petitioner has filed a return of income on 30-10-1981 and similarly for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the petitioner filed the return of income. Appeals were preferred under section 144 of the Act to set aside the assessment. Thereafter, the revisions were also filed. It has been contended that the assessee did not claim interest taken from the bank. In the revisions filed the assessee claimed that the petitioner's unit was a sick unit and the...
P. Selvaraj and anr. Vs. P. Swamy Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ159
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, dated 29.7.1986 in A.S.No. 2 of 1986 in partly, allowing the judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil in O.S.No. 1041 of 1982. The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the second appeal.2. The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon or making any construction over the south eastern border of the plaint schedule property and also from blocking the pathway shown in blue colour shade in the plan annexed to the plaint. According to the plaintiff the property originally belonged to one Vethanayagam along with a larger extent. The said properties were hypothecated to one Madaswamy Nadar, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. As the hypothecatee failed to discharge the amount due under the hypothecation deed O.S.No. 522 of 1106 M.E. was filed before the Additional Distr...
R. Srinivasan Vs. V. Thangaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ337
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. The revision petitioner in each of the petitions is the landlord in R.C.O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 1988 respectively on the file of the Rent Controller, Manapparai. The respondents in both the revisions are the respective respondents in those proceedings, In R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1988 there was only one tenant and on account of his death, his legal representatives have come to be brought on record. Eviction was sought for in both the cases on two grounds, viz., wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds. On appeal by the respective tenants, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller in both the cases. Hence, these two revisions.2. I heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in each case and Mr. D. Rajendran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in each case. The pleading in the first rent control case, ...
K. Balu and Others Vs. Madasamy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC594
1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.298 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur have come to this court complaining about the illegality of procedure adopted by the Lower Court.2. Petitioners have filed the suit for declaration that they are hereditary Poojaries and for consequential reliefs. Respondents had filed a suit against some third parties for the relief relating to settlement of accounts, etc.; and thesame is pending before this Court in S.A.1548 of 1995. In view of the pendency of second appeal before this Court, an application was filed by respondents to have the entire suit stayed under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also passed an order under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure staying all the proceedings.3. Thereafter, the same petitioners moved an application for injunction in the suit seeking for some urgent reliefs. I am not going into the question as to the relief sought for in that injunction application since the court refused to enterta...
Ramiah Asari Vs. Smt. Kurshad Begaum and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC600
ORDER1. Seventh defendant in O.S.No.94 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurai town is the revision petitioner herein. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. Material facts which necessitated filing of this revision could be summarised thus: Respondents herein filed O.S.No.1459 of 1996 on the file ofDistrict Munsif Court. Madurai against petitioner. Suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants, their man and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit properly therein. Property covered by suit is included in resurvey Nos. 12/1, 12/2, and 12/3. It is not disputed that injunction application filed by plaintiff was dismissed and the matter was taken in C.M.A. and the same was also not successful. It is also not in dispute that a revision was taken against that order which was also dismissed at the admission stage with a direction to dispose of the suit within stipulated time.3. Whileso. ...
Dr. Fazlur Rahman Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad272; 1999(2)CTC766
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition in W.P.No. 12428 of 1998 seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the notice of thesecond respondent dated 3.8.1998 purporting to be issued under Rule 1 of PartIV of the Code of Ethics, and to forbear the respondents from in any mannertaking penal action against the petitioner. He has also filed W.P.No. 12429 of1998 seeking to issue a writ of declaration, declaring Rule 1 of Part IV of'Code of Medical Ethics' of Tamil Nadu Medical Council as ultra vires theConstitution of India, illegal, inoperative and non-est insofar as the petitioner isconcerned.2. The petitioner is a qualified medical practitioner acquired degree in medicine. He has also been designated as M.D. and Ph. D. in accupuncture. An article was published in Tamil Health magazine, 'Family Health' regarding the view of American Doctors who had expressed that children who had been administered with polio vaccine are not totally immune to the said disease b...
R. Selvaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secretary Depar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC581; (1999)IIMLJ232
ORDER1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Erode in A.S.No. 33 of 1985 confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Erode in O.S.No. 541 of 1982. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above second appeal.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that the defendant/State of Tamil Nadu by its Commercial Tax Department had no right to proceed against the suit 'A' schedule properties either by sale or by any other means, for recovery of the alleged arrears of sales tax said to be due from the plaintiff's father late R.S. Ramasamy and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling or in any other manner disturbing the plaintiff's rights, possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule properties. Both the 'A' and 'B' schedule suit properties, according to the plaintiff, originally belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and his late father R.S. Ramasamy, being their ancestral properties. The joint famil...
Arignar Anna Weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad254
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. W.P. Nos. 13836, 13837, 13843 and 13 844 of 1998 are filed by the respective Cooperative Society represented by the President seeking to quash the notice issued by the Enquiry Officer under Section 81 (2)( 1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Notice is dated 31-8-1998.2. Even before the notice was issued, an orderof supersession was passed against those Societies as per Order dated 13-6-1998 and confirmed in Appeal dated 20-10-1998. Orders of supersession are challenged in W.P. Nos. 16880 to 16883 of 1998.3. I will first take into consideration the question whether the order of supersession is valid, for which I need narrate the facts in W.P. No. 16880 of 1998 since the facts are similar in all cases. That Writ Petition was filed by the members of the Board and the Society.4. Petitioners therein assumed Office on 30-10-1996. A show cause notice was issued on 10-4-1998 under Section 88( 1 )(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, asking...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »