Chennai Court October 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.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. K. Vijayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: [2000]107TAXMAN570(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the revenue:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the additional wealth-tax is not leviable in respect of agricultural lands lying within 8 kms. of the municipal limit?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has valid materials to hold that the properties standing in the name of Vijayakumar Cotton Press are to be considered as used for business purposes and, hence, are exempt from levy of additional wealth-tax ?'2. The assessment years are 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessment was under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The assessee owns agricultural lands within 8 kms. from Coimbatore municipal limit. The assessee also has a cotton press with godown known as 'Vijayakumar Cotton Press' in a portion of the land. The assessee claimed exemption from the additional wealth-ta...
Mr. Thanisias (Deceased) and Nine Others Vs. Ms.Selvam Ammal (Died) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC245
ORDER1. The appellants 1 and 2 are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondents for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants with mesne profits and the arrears of rent.2. Though the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondents, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Hence, this second appeal.3. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was handed over by the plaintiffs to the defendants for lease on a monthly rent of Rs.3 in January, 1977 and the defendants did not pay the rent from January, 1978 and despite the notice terminating the tenancy, they did not vacate nor paid the arrears of rent. Therefore, they filed the suit.4. According to the defendants, they purchased the suit property from the original owner Maduthin Nadar, the husband of the first plaintiff in the year 1958 and they constructed a pucca building in the suit ...
R. Ravichandran Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC477
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by K.G. Balakrishnan, CJ.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 1.9.1999 in Writ Petition Nos.12717 of 1999 etc.2. The appellants participated in the auction held for the year 1998-99 for grant of licence for running Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) shops and the licences were granted in their-names for running shops in their respective notified area. The licensees have been given liberty to renew the licence for the next year, on payment of the original licence fee plus 15 per cent enhancement and all these appellants have accordingly renewed their licences for the year 1999-2000, by paying the enhanced licence fee. Some ofthe licensees who had been given licence to run IMFL shops for the year 1998-99 did not renew their licence for the year 1999-2000. There are about 4700 retail vending IMFL shops and only 3721 licensees had renewed their shops for the year 1999-2000. The respondents, therefo...
Ravi R. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ323Mad
P.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated October 8, 1996, in M.A. No. 107 of 1996, in I.D. No. 68 of 1991, refusing to give the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence on the petitioner's side and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to give the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence in I.D. No. 68 of 1991.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:Admittedly, documents M-1 to M-8 were marked by consent of both parties. When the matter was posted for arguments, the second respondent-management came with applications I.A. Nos. 289 and 290 of 1995 to seek permission of the first respondent Tribunal to receive the documents and to permit the second respondent-management to examine its officers as witnesses respectively and both the said applications were allowed. Accordingly, M.W-1 was examined and through him documents M-8 to M-18 were marked. The...
R. Ravichandran Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ772
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 1.9.1999 in Writ Petition Nos. 12717 of 1999 etc.2. The appellants participated in the auction held for the year 1998-99 for grant of licence for running Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) shops and the licences were granted in their names for running shops in their respective notified area. The licensees have been given liberty to renew the licence for the next year, on payment of the original licence fee plus 15 per cent enhancement and all these appellants have accordingly renewed their licences for the year 1999-2000, by paying the enhanced licence fee. Some of the licensees who had been given licence to run IMFL shops for the year 1998-99 did not renew their licence for the year 1999-2000. There are about 4700 retail vending IMFL shops and only 3721 licensees had renewed their shops for the year 1999-2000. The respondents, therefore, took steps to re-aucti...
Ganesan Vs. State Represented by Circle Inspector of Police (Law and O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC620
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by N. Dhinakar, J.1. The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the accused in this judgment, was tried before I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, inSessions Case No. 14 of 1990, on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 10.00 a.m. on 9.6.1989, as Stabbed Pandian, the deceased in the case in the middle of his chest with a knife, M.O.I., as a result of which, the said Pandian died on his way to a private nursing home run by P.W.6.2. To prove the case, the prosecution, before the trial court, examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-16 as well as M.Os.1 to 9.3. The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the accused has to be convicted as charged and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal.4. The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarised as follows:5. P.W.I and the deceased along with P.W.2 were working in a printing press run by the fath...
Prof. K. Govindasamy Vs. the Commissioner of Collegiate Education Coll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC440
ORDER1. The petitioner was working in the second respondent unaided College as Principal and attained his age of superannuation on 14.7.1993. Placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.281, Education, dated 13.2.1981, which is, of course, applicable to the aided colleges, providing that if any teacher has to retire in the middle of the academic year, he would be permitted to continue till the end of the academic year, the petitioner claims that he is entitled for the benefit ofthe said G.O. and to work till the end of the respective academic year, viz.31.5.1994.2. It appears that the petitioner also made a representation on 2.7.1993 to permit him to continue his service as Principal, till the end of the academic year, viz. till 31.5.1994. The said representation dated 2.7.1993 was considered by the governing body of the second respondent-College on 8.7.1993. However, the same was rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved from service on 14.7.1993. Hence, the above writ petition.3. The lear...
Mrs. Jemima Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Educati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC760; (2000)1MLJ699
ORDER1. Admittedly, even though the petitioner had undergone the NurserySecondary Grade Teacher's Training course, which is not equivalent to theSecondary Grade Teacher' Training Course, she was appointed as SecondaryGrade Teacher Fourth respondent school. The Government, byG.O.Ms.No.564 (Education) dated 20.3.1978, by way of a policy decision,decided to abolish the cadre of Higher Grade Teachers, but at the same timeprotected the interests of the then working Higher grade Teachers and enabledthem to undergo In-service Training conducted by State Council forEducational Research and Training (SCERT) so that they can be upgraded asSecondary Grade Teachers. In view of the fact that the petitioner was nothaving the Secondary Grade Qualification at the time of her appointment, i.e.On 5.9.1979, which is subsequent to the passing of the G.O.Ms.No.564(Education) dated 20.3.1978, the petitioner, could not be treated as SecondaryGrade Teacher. However, the other two teachers, viz. Renuka Livings...
Chinnasamy Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ956
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Petitioner/Accused in CC 215 of 1998 on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings pending against. him.2. The case in brief is as follows:One Periampillai gave a compLalnt against the petitioner alleging that he had abused him by calling his caste name. On the said compLalnt, the respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No. 12/95 under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter called as S.C. and S.T. Act) and the case was investigated by the Police and ultimately , the case was referred. He sent petitions to higher officials for proper investigation and dropping of the case. With the result, the respondent-Police after investigation has not only referred the case but also sent intimation to the petitioner stating that the case had been referred. While so, it ...
Anjalai and 6 Others Vs. Arumuga Chettiar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC154
ORDER1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in A.S.No.136 of 1985 in confirming that of the learned District Munsif, Panruti in O.S. No.351 of 1982. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants in the above second appeal.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of the plaintiffs title to the suit property, restraining the 2nd defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property and three other items originally belonged to one Peria Pillai Ammal and after her death, about 45 years back, her daughter, Jagadambal Ammal, inherited them and enjoyed them in her own right absolutely. The said Peria Pillai Ammal while she was alive, and at the time of her death expressed a wish that the properties, after the lifetime of Jagadambal, should go to her son's family to be enjoyed by the heirs of her son absolutely.' Therefore, in keeping with the wish of Perial P...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »