Chennai Court December 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.
P.W. Isenth and Another Vs. the Atomic Energy Education Society Rep. b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC566
ORDER1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner respectively being husband and wife individually challenge the orders of transfer passed by the respondent transferring them from Atomic Energy Central School, Kalpakkam to Atomic Energy Central School, Manuguru by order dated 11th June 1999.2. The separate orders impugned in both the writ petitions are identical in all respects. The petitioner in W.P.No.12475 of 1999 is P.W. Isenth, while the petitioner in W.P.No.12476 of 1999 is Laly Michael, who is the wife of the said P.S.Isenth.3. The challenge to the impugned orders is identical in both the writ petitions and it would be sufficient to set out the common case and contentions to decide both the writ petitions.4. The petitioner in the first writ petition is a trained graduate teacher in Art while the petitioner in the second writ petition is a primary teacher in Maths/Science. The petitioner in the second writ petition was initially appointed as a primary teacher on 4.2.1995 at Tara...
Saminathan and 4 Others Vs. the Inspector of Police, Puddukkottai Town ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC285
ORDER1. Petitioners are 'A' party in M.C. No.52 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Puddukottai, and the proceedings against the petitioners as well as 'B' party were initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C., with an allegation that there is a dispute in respect of a building in T.S.N.No2763 situate at East Main St, near Brindavanam, Puddukottai, and that the said dispute is likely to result in breach of peace.2. After the proceedings were initiated, summons were issued by the learned Magistrate to both the parties to appear before him on 3.6.96.Accordingly, on 3.6.96, both the parties appeared and sought time to file written statements. On that date, 'C' party also appeared and filed a petition with a prayer to implead them in the proceedings, which was allowed. The case was adjourned to 10.6.96 on which date, a written statement of 'B' party was filed. The matter was adjourned to 17.6.96 and then to 1.7.96. In between 17.6.96 and 1.7.96, '...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kshatriya Girls Schools Managing Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1999
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)87; [2000]109TAXMAN77(Mad)
Jain, JThe above tax case is at the instance of the Commissioner, Madurai, under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to exemption provided under section 10(22) of the Act ?'2. The learned standing counsel for the department submits that the controversy had already been set at rest in the case of the same assessee, in CIT v. Kshatriya Girls Schools Managing Board (1999) 9 DTC (Mad-HC) : (1998) 101 Taxman 555 and in favour of the assessee.3. In view of the above statement and for the reasons mentioned in the decision cited supra, the question of law referred is answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The tax case is disposed of accordingly. No costs....
Siluvai Antony @ Gandhi Vs. the Secretary to Government., Prohibition ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC211
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the detenu, who had been detained as a ' Goonda' as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 pursuant to the impugned order of detention, dated 10.4.1999 issued by the second respondent herein.2. Since the only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner had already been covered by a number of judgments of this court, we do not propose to deal with the facts in detail.3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sponsoring Authority has filed the affidavit before the Detaining Authority, on 8.4.1999. Subsequent to the filing of the affidavit, the bail petition filed by the detenu, dated 6.4.1999, had been forwarded to the Detaining Authority, which forms part of the booklet. In the affidavit filed by the Sponsoring Authority, he has categorically stated that no bail application has been moved by the detenu.Hence, the bail application enclosed in the booklet ought to have been...
Easwaramoorthy Velar Vs. Parvathathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC412
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S.No.394 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Srivaikundam, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by the plaintiff was one for redemption of Ex.A1 mortgage dated 26.8.1975. Plaintiff borrowed an amount of Rs. 4,000 and executed a othi and possession was also handed over to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the othi period is over on 26.5.1990. She being an agriculturist is entitled to the benefit of Act 40 of 1979 as per provisions of that Act. Since the property is in the possession of the defendant for more than ten years, the plaintiff is entitled to redeem mortgage without payment. The plaintiff made a demand on 10.7.1992 which was received by the defendant on 13.7.1992. The defendant did not send any reply nor he surrendered the property to her. The suit was therefore laid to recover property from the defendant free from encumbrances.3. The appellant contented that suit is not maintainable in law and only an application before the Local Ta...
T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR133(Mad)
N.K. Jain, J. 1. These tax case petitions are filed by the petitioner to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to refer the following questions law to this court for its consideration and opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, is right in law in holding that the reassessments under Section 147(b) of the Act are in order 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in law and acted without evidence or in disregard of material evidence filed by the assessee in holding that the salary and maintenance expenses paid to Mr. Nicholas Sundaram was not allowable expenditure 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to several documents filed by the assessee, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the salary and maintenance expenditure incurred by the assessee on Mr. Nicholas Sundaram have been ri...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. West Coast Electric Supplies Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR565(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. In compliance with the direction of this court in T. C. P. Nos. 309 to 318 of 1986, dated November 12, 1986, made under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has stated a case in T. C. Nos. 935 to 944 of 1988 and referred the following' questions of law in relation to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1976-77 and 1977-78 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding and had valid material to hold that the dividend income received from the subsidiary company should be assessed under the head 'Business' and not under the head 'Income from shares' ? 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest income in respect of the compensation paid by the Government of Kerala should not be assessed in enti...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sita Venkataramani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR68(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Tax Cases Nos. 1978 to 1981 of 1984 are at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-I, Madras, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'B', Madras (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has stated a case and referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on a partial distribution of the assets and liabilities of the estate of the deceased, the assessee, legal representative could deduct the debts allotted to her share in computing her own net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?'2. Tax Case No. 1269 of 1991 is also at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-I, Madras, and the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the Act.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Ap...
Spencer and Co. Ltd. Vs. P.O., I Additional Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ1005Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. From out of all the above writ petitions, the first one in W.P. No. 11397/1990 has been filed by the management, Spencer and Co. Ltd. against the Labour Court as the first respondent and the individual workers as respondents 2 to 15 praying to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the first respondent Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Madras from proceeding with C.P. No. 525/1990 on its file.2. The second writ petition in W.P. No. 10267/1995 has also been filed by the Management, Spencer and Company Limited, Madras as against the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal as the first respondent and the workmen of the Spencer Thozhilalar Munnertra Sangam as the second respondent praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction to call for the records connected with I.D. No. 65/89 and quash the award dated March 31, 1994.3. So far as the third writ petition in W.P. No. 13640/1995 is concerned, it has been filed by th...
Ashok Kumar S. Vs. Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ397Mad
E. Padmanasbhan, J. 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent principal Labour Court, Chennai, relating to award dated April 26, 1999, passed in I. D. No. 643 of 1995, quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with back wages, continuity and all attendant benefits. 2. This Court ordered rule nisi on August 6, 1999. The contesting respondent had entered appearance and also filed counter- affidavit. 3. Heard Ms. A Lakshmi for Mr. V. Prakash for the petitioner and Mr. R. P. Kabilan for the second respondent. 4. The petitioner was employed as a conductor in the erstwhile Pallavan Transport Corporation, since on reorganisation known as Metropolitan Transport Corporation. According to the petitioner, on December 14, 1988, he sustained employment injury in an accident that arose out of and during his employment, that the petitioner underwent treatment in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »