Chennai Court December 1999 Judgments
Lakshmi Jewellery Vs. Asstt. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-1999
Reported in: (2001)73TTJ(Mad)981
ORDERP.S. Kalsian, A.M.This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, SIC-I, Coimbatore, dated 30-3-1996, passed under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal filed with the memorandum of appeal were in various pages containing statement of facts as well as arguments. The assessee's counsel was asked to file concise grounds of appeal and he filed grounds of appeal as well as written submissions. The learned Departmental Representative has also filed written submissions.2. We have carefully considered the written submissions, material on record and the issues argued by both the parties. The first ground raised by the assessee is to the effect that the assessment is violative of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the principles of natural justice. It is argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee-firm was not given a reasonable opportunity with regard to various issues covered by the assessment order. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!St. Isables Hospital Rep. by Its Administrator Vs. A.V. Murugan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC260; (2000)1MLJ584
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S.No.7746 of 1998 on the file of II Assistant City Civil Court, Madras is the revision petitioner herein.2. Defendant is St. Isables Hospital and it entered into an arrangement with plaintiff whereby plaintiff was permitted to collect parking fee from the two-wheelers coming to the hospital for which he has to pay Rs.1,000 per month on the first day of every month. According to plaintiff, the said arrangement is a lease and defendant is not entitled to dispossess plaintiff except in accordance with law. It is said that after the arrangement the monthly payment was enhanced to Rs.1,500 from 1994 onwards and the same arrangement continues till date. According to him, he employed four persons to look after parking arrangements inside the hospital premises.3. Reason for filing the suit was that an alleged demand was made by defendant enhancing the amount from Rs.12,000 per annum to Rs.1.00 lakh per annum, which the plaintiff did not oblige and consequently, defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Julkabi (Died) and 2 Others Vs. Vairavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC628; (2000)1MLJ474
ORDER1. Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.181 of 1978 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Salem is the revision petitioner herein. 2. Landlord filed eviction petition on the ground that building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. According to landlord, petitioner herein is tenant of the building. Landlord obtained right over the property as per sale deed dated 15.7.1978 and petitioner also attorned tenancy in his favour from the date of sale deed. Previous owner Ramasubramaniya Mudaliar by registered letter dated 3.8.1978 intimated petitioner about the sale and wanted petitioner to pay rent to respondent herein from the date of sale deed. Petitioner herein did not send any reply. According to landlord, building occupied by tenant is very old and he wanted to demolish the entire building and construct a new terraced building in that place. Landlord has submitted his plan and licence and also demanded vacant possession. 3. Before institution of this proceeding landlord iss...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Ispahani and Another Vs. Harrington House School by Its Hon. Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC634; (2000)IIMLJ38
ORDER1. The landlords are the revision petitioners. They sought the eviction of the respondent/tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for demolition and reconstruction.2. The contents of the petition are as follows:The property belongs to the petitioners, is of an extent of 22 grounds 1000 sq.ft. of land with a main building consisting of ground floor and first floor, servant quarters-cum-garage, watchman's quarters; comprised in Rs.No. 126/3 & 14 in Block No. 21 Nungambakkam. It is situate 150 ft. from Nungambakkam High Road. The 'property' was let out to the respondent on a monthly rental of Rs.5,750, and the respondent is running a school mainly for the expatriates in the premises. There was an earlier petition filed in R.C.O.P.No.844of 1982 by the revision petitions for fixation of fair rent at Rs.26,356 per month. The authorities fixed the fair rent at Rs. 19,897.60 with effect from 16.2.1982. At the time of filing the R.C.O.P...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Vs. Gopalakrishna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC88; (2000)1MLJ632
ORDER1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/landlord sought his eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent.2. The averments made in the petition for eviction are as under:The rent for the premises was Rs.90 per month originally. The respondent/landlord filed RCOP No./66/1989 before the Rent Controller, Cuddalore, on 28.11.1989, for fixation of fair rent. The fair rent was fixed at Rs.155 per monthly with effect from the date of petition. The respondent/landlord filed an appeal against the orders but the revision petitioner/tenant did not prefer any appeal, The petition for eviction was being filed without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to get any enhanced amount of fair rent. The tenant had always been in persistent default in the payment of rent. There was an earlier petition for eviction filed against the tenant on the ground of wilful default and the same was pending before this Court in revision at the time of filing the eviction pe...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Balasubramaniam Vs. S. Munuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC417
ORDER1. Plaintiff's in O.S.No.158 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Chingleput, is the revision petitioner. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff's that he has obtained an agreement for sale from the defendant who is the owner of the property. It is also said that the defendant in spite of various demands made by the plaintiff, has not come forward to execute the document and he has been evading to perform his part of contract for one mason or other. It was also contended that right from May, 1998, the defendant has been attempting to sell the property in favour of 3rd parties for higher price and has been evading registration of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also said that the plaintiff has also expressed his readiness and willingness to take the sale deed and even approached the defendant on 11.5.1998 to have the transaction completed, but the defendant was again evading to have the document executed. The suit was therefore laid for a decree of permanent ...
Tag this Judgment!India Cements Capital Finance Ltd. Vs. Kwality Spinning Mills Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: [2000]102CompCas523(Mad); 2000(2)CTC267
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. Applications filed by the defendants under Order 14, Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and also under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act.2. The case in brief is as follows : The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that they are the sole and absolute owners of the suit schedule machinery, for a mandatory injunction directing them to deliver the schedule mentioned properties to them at Chennai, and also for permanent injunction. The existence of the alleged hire purchase agreement dated March 31, 1997, is denied. The transaction between the two companies is nothing but a loan transaction is evidently clear from the documents. The transaction was styled and named as 'hire purchase agreement' so as to enable the plaintiff to obtain a tax benefit towards depreciation. The plaintiff not being the owner of the schedule mentioned equipment, is not entitled to re-possess the same. This co...
Tag this Judgment!Trio Marketing Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2000(122)ELT32(Mad)
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the order of assessment dated 11.03.1992, made on the Bill of Entry Rotation No. 36/92 and to direct the third respondent to re-assess the price of the goods adopting the official rate instead of the Customs Exchange rate.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. Per contra, though no counter affidavit has been filed, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contested the matter and pleaded that the writ petition has to be dismissed for want of merits.3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have gone through the conten...
Tag this Judgment!Pallava Minerals Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1999
Reported in: 2001(127)ELT19(Mad)
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. Since in these Writ Petitions, the subject matter involved and also the respondents are one and the same these writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. W.P. No. 5899/92 has been filed seeking for a Writ of Declaration to declare that the newly amended rules, levying 10% export duty on export of rough granite on and from 1-3-1992 does not apply to the petitioner in respect of the 55-241 CMB consignment of granite cleared by the 2nd and 3rd respondents for export on 11-2-1992 from Tuticorin port and consequently to direct the respondents to return a sum of Rs. 75,940/- collected on 23-3-1992 as export duty from the petitioner in respect of shipped consignment of 55-241 CBM of rough granite blocks cleared for export on 11-2-1992 by vessel 'M.V. Boris Bobahkin' and sought to ship by different vessel.3. W.P. No. 5900/92 has been filed seeking for a Writ of Declaration to declare th...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Sutha S. and 7 Others Vs. the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Poon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC267
ORDER1. Petitioners in all the three writ petitions are applicants for admission to the co-operative training institute at Nagercoil. They have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus for a direction to select them to the diploma course conducted by the respondents for the year 1999-2000.2. There are 11 institutes of Co-operative Management and a total strength of candidates that could be admitted for the year 1999-2000 is 9,825. Insofar as the Nagercoil Co-operative Institute of Management is concerned, the strength of the seats, originally fixed at 400, has been increased to 600. As per the proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative societies dated 23.6.99, a selection committee has been constituted and procedure for selection has been ordered. The selection committee comprised of the following:(1) President of the Institute of Co-operative Management- Chairman.(2) Representative of T.N.C.U.- Member.(3) Regional Joint Registrar or his representative having administrative control...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »