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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. West Coast Electric Supplies Corpn. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN54(Mad)
Balasubramanian, J.In compliance of the direction of this court in T.C.P. Nos. 309 to 318 of 1986, dated 12-11-1986, made under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has stated in 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 entirety on receipt basis in the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which it was received but...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Mrs. Sita Venkataramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1999
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN322(Mad)
Balasubramanian, J.T.C. Nos. 1978 to 1981 of 1984 are at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-I, Madras, and the Tribunal, Madras Bench `B', Madras, has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter 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. T.C. No. 1269 of 1990 is also at the instance of the Commissioner, 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 Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee's share of liability as legal heir of the estate of his late fathe...
Nallamadan S. (D) by Anandammal L.R. Vs. Administrative Officer, Town ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ726Mad; (2000)1MLJ554
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petition has been filed praying to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to pay interest at 12% p.a. on the gratuity sum of Rs. 4,650/- from October 1, 1976 till the date of payment. 2. The first petitioner would narrate his case in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to the effect that he got appointed as Sanitary Worker in the office of the first respondent on June 1, 1945 and after 31 years of service, he retired on September 30, 1976, that after retirement, he sought gratuity and much to his dismay, he was informed by the first respondent that no gratuity was payable to him; that he made an application dated September 20, 1990 to the Controlling Authority under Section 7(4) of the Payment of Gratuity Act seeking gratuity along with interest for the belated payment, but the Controlling Authority dismissed the said application by his order dated February 21, 1991 on ...
Management of Terrace Estate Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ52Mad; (2000)1MLJ590
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. The petitioner viz., The Management of Terrace Estate located at the Nilgiris, has filed the above two writ petitions against the proceedings of the Labour Court as the first respondent in both the writ petitions and against one Gopal as the second respondent in the former and Gurujavaran as the second respondent in the latter writ petitions, thereby praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent Labour Court respectively made in I.D. Nos. 302 and 328 of 1986 dated May 20, 1991 and to quash, the same.2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents as well.3. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions are identical rather the same, excepting for certain individual particulars since the whole affair arises from out of one and the same delinquency committed by both the second respondent in the above writ petitions, but since separate awards have been passed by the first respondent Labour...
Tiger Muthiah Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary, Home ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC1; (2000)1MLJ516
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Petitioner claims to be a public spirited citizen and he is the former General secretary of the Student Wing of Indian National Congress Party for Tamil Nadu State and he is associated with the activities of that organisation. Petitioner alleges that in the case relating to the murder of the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, some of the accused have been found guilty by the Honourable Supreme Court and four of them were sentenced to death these four persons have submitted their mercy petitions before the President of India and the same are pending consideration. The petitioner herein would contend that the members of the various political organisations are campaigning against the imposition of death penalty and prayed that the President shall use his discretionary power for granting pardon. This, according to the petitioner is illegal interference with the presidential power and therefore, there shall be a writ of mandamus to the effect that the responden...
Lakshmanan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC382
ORDER1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge in W.P.No.10307 of 1991, dated 24.2.1999. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the acquisition notification issued under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The facts which are sufficient for the disposal of the writ appeal are admitted by both sides and are as follows:- (i) The impugned proceedings are initiated for acquisition of lands for provision of house sites for Adi dravidars. An extent of 0.91.5 hectare in Survey Nos.18/3 and 18/4 of Kolakkaravady village was sought to be acquired and in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the names of Lakshmanan (writ petitioner) Raman and Annamalai were shown as owners of strips of land comprised within the said extent. All the three of them are sons of Late Kuppusamy and notice was sent to all of them calling upon them to file their objections and for an enq...
D.V. Raghavan Vs. A.J. Suresh Kumar and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC13
ORDER1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, dismissing the application filed by the appellant in I.A. No. 503 of 1989 in O.S.No.53 of 1989 for raising the attachment over the schedule mentioned property. 2. The first respondent herein filed the suit against the second respondent herein for recovery of Rs.94,680 due on a promissory noteexecuted on 9.10.1988. The suit was filed on 15.3.1989. Alongwith the plaint, the first respondent filed an application under Order 38, Rule 5 and Section 151, C.P.C. for attachment before judgment of the property belonging to the second respondent. On the same date, the learned Subordinate Judge, passed the following order: 'Notice and Heard. Respondent is directed to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 75,000 failing which attachment by 13.4.89. On 22.3.89 attachment was actually effected. Alleging that he had purchased the property on 17.3.89 subject to two mortgages the appella...
S. Rajendran Vs. Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Devasthnam, Mylapore Madras-4 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC677; (2000)1MLJ764
ORDER1. This is an atrocious case and one of the several unfortunate instances where the observation of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, that in India the troubles for the decree- holder commence after the decree would aptly apply.2. The first respondent herein filed suit in O.S.No.8137 of 1978 against the second respondent herein and obtained an ex parte decree on 7.1.1980 The decree was put into execution in E. P. No. 635 of 1984. The revision petitioner obstructed execution contending that he was in occupation of the property under the authority of one Venkataramana. who according to him. was the successful bidder for lease of the suit property. The first respondent/decree-holder filed EA.No.4149 of 1984 in E.P.No, 635 of 1984 for removal of obstruction against him. This E.A. was dismissed as the main execution petition itself was hot pressed. The decree-holder filed E.P.No.3400 of 1989 against the second respondent/judgment-debtor. The revision petitioner was impleaded in t...
Pattaraiswamy S. Vs. Management of Sundaram Industries Ltd., Madurai ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ881Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge in W.P. No. 12955 of 1999. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order of the Labour Court, Madurai dated July 7, 1999 in I.A. No. 125 of 1999 in I.D. No. 353 of 1992. The writ petition was filed by the Management, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court in allowing the petition by a workman under Rule 34 and Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, praying for reopening of his side and to adduce evidence. 3. The appellant/worker who was working as a Mould Press Operator in the respondent/company stood charged with several allegations of misconduct by virtue of a charge memo dated September 25, 1989. After an enquiry, the enquiry officer, in and by his findings dated February 15, 1991, held that the charges were proved and the Management, by its order dated March 9, 1991 dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant raised an industrial dispute und...
Mahamani Vs. the Union of India Rep. but Its Secretary Ministry of Hom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC44
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V. Bakthavatsalu, J. (for Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Dhinakar & for himself)1. The Division Bench consisting of V.S. Sirpurkar, J and K.Gnanaprakasam, J have formulated the following question for reference to Full Bench:'When there is a discrepancy in the English version and in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu in the sense that, while it is stated in the English version that the 'representation' against the detention would be placed before the Advisory Board, the Tamil version does not include that assurance, and instead, it is stated in the Tamil version merely that the'case' of the detenu shall be placed before the Advisory Board under Section 10 of Act 14 of 1982, is it sufficient compliance? In other words, the question for consideration is whether the term used in the Tamil version would also include a 'representation' made on behalf of the detenu against the detention'.As per the orders of My Lord the Honourable The Chi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »