Chennai Court February 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.
S. Ramaswamy and Four Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC335
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No. 8 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil, are the revision petitioners. The first respondent filed I.A.NO. 199 of 97 in the suit under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the second respondent as a party to the proceedings. The learned First Additional Subordinate Judge by his order dated 2.12.1997 has allowed the application and as against that order the present civil revision petition has been filed.2. The suit has been filed for a declaration and recovery of possession of an approximate extent of 60 acres minus the area covered by R.S.No. 449/1 having an extent of 10 acres 51 cents in the land in R.S.Nos. 449/1, 2 and 3 surrounding properties coming within the stated boundaries in Arumanalloor Village. Thovalai Taluk in Kanyakumari District and for a permanent injunction restraining the first respondent State from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the portion of the sch...
Nilagiri Cancer Centre (P) Ltd. Vs. Dir. Gen. of Health Services
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(65)ECC40; 1999(111)ELT326(Mad)
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. This writ petition and WMP coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 8-1-1999 and made herein and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the Order No. S/30/497/96 Ace. dated 17-1-1997 and C.No. VIII48/53A/98-Cus. Prer. dated 13-12-1998 on the file of 2nd and 3rd respondents respectively comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate for the petitioner in both the petitions and of Shri I. Sathuraman. Additional Central Govt., standing counsel advocate for the respondents in both the petitions the court made the following orders :-The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the recovery proceedings of the second respondent herein dated 17-1-1997 and the order of attachment dated 13-12-1998 passed by the third respon...
Special Steel Products Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1999
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)117
ORDERN. V. Balasubramanian, J.The question of status of the petitioner-whether is should be assessed in the status of a registered firm or an unregistered firm under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arises in the writ petition.2. The petitioner is a firm engaged in the manufacture of C.R.G.O. sheets for distribution transformers on job work basis. The assessment year, with which we are concerned is the assessment year 1991-92, the relevant accounting year ended on 31-3-1991. The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') filed its return of income for the assessment year 1991-92 belatedly on 26-9-1994, when the due date for return of income for the said assessment year 1991-92 under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was 31-8-1991. Though the assessee filed its return of income belatedly, the belated return of income was regularised by the Income Tax Officer by the issue of a notice under section 148 o...
Ranganatha Gounder Vs. Perumal Nattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC361
ORDER1. The defendant is O.S.No. 859 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Villupuram, is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. The suit is for declaration of title in respect of D schedule property and for recovery of possession of the said property free from obstruction and fro mesne profits. During the course of trial, a document dated 22.6.1995 stated to have been executed by the defendant in the suit to the plaintiff therein, was sought to be marked. The marking and the admissibility of that document was objected to by the defendant. The learned trial Judge by order dated 18.7.1998 held that the said document is admissible in evidence. Hence the present Revision before this court on that issue.2. I heard Mr.V. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K. Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. At this stage, this Court is concerned only with the admissibility of the document referred to above. ...
Salem Chit Funds and Financiers Association Represented by Its Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC373; (1999)IIMLJ46
ORDER1. Salem Chit Funds and financiers Association represented by its secretary has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent relating to G.O.Ms.747 Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department dated 2.12.1990 inserting the same as Rule 3-A of to the Tamil Nadu Partnership (Registration of firms) Rules and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The members of the association consists of registered partnership firms and individuals, carrying on business in chit funds and financing in Salem District. Most of the members of the association are partnership firms. The partnership Act does not prescribe or provide for the necessity of filing any declaration form by a registered firm, for its continuance after the registration of such firm under section 59 of the act. Under section 61, the firm has to send intimation to the registrar only in cases where it discontinues business at any place...
Jayarama Naidu Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC566
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 34 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore is the appellant herein. The plaintiff instituted the said suit for redemption, recovery of possession and for future mesne profits. The trial Court granted preliminary decree for redemption from the first defendant and directed the plaintiff to go before the Revenue Court for recovery of possession from the second defendant as the second defendant has since been recorded as a cultivating tenant. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.3 of 1985 on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore which was transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore and taken on file as A.S.No. 2 of 1985.2. The first appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. In other words the plaintiff suit for redemption had been decreed and the plaintiff prayer for recovery of possession had been negatived with a direction that the plaintiff has to go before t...
Major Ramachandran and Another Vs. Mrs. Rema Jayarajan, Rep by Power A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC705
ORDER1. In these revision petitions, this court ordered notice of motion to the contesting respondent.2. Heard Mr.T.Arulraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.S.Krishan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.3. As identical questions have been raised, these two revision petitions are disposed by this common order.4. It is fairly stated by the counsel on either side that the points that are raised for consideration are identical in both the revision petitions. For the purpose of appreciating the contention, it is not essential to set out the factual matrix in detail in both the revision petitions.5. C.R.P.No. 3054 of 1998 has been filed challenging the fair and decretal order dated 2.9.1998 made in I.A.No. 612 of 1998 in O.S.No. 222 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthagamandalam. Nilgiris District, whereby the court below rejected the application to take out the jurisdictional issue as the preliminary issue. Admittedly the suits have ...
V.K. Siddha Padayachi Vs. Indian Bank Branch at Shevapet, Salem by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC654
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Salem in A.S.No.233 of 1984 in confirming that of the learned District Munsif Salem in O.S.No.260 of 1975. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the present second appeal.2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/ Indian Bank for a sum of Rs.3,795 being the principal and interest allegedly due on the promissory note executed by the defendant on 13.4.1970. According to the plaintiff, the promissory note was executed, the defendant promising to pay the amount on demand with interest at the rate of 4 1/2 %. The defendant also executed a deed of hypothecation on 13.4.1970 hypothecating a new 5HP Electric Motor Pumpset for the due payment of the loan. As the defendant did not clear the loan inspite of numerous demands, he had given a letter of acknowledgment duly stamped and signed by him dated 6.3.1973 whereby he has acknowledged his liability under the promissory note dated 13-4-1970. Wit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Engine Valves Ltd. and Selvi Textiles ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR489(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the order passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income-tax cancelling the order of the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1979-80 on the ground that there was no previous year at all ? 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1979-80 when there is no previous year is valid in law and that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 214 of the Income-tax Act is sustainable in law, having regard to the provisions of Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' The assessee-company carries on business in manufacture and sale of engine valves. It had paid advance tax, during the 12 month period preceding March 31, 1979, which 12 month period was its financial year...
Smt. Bajaj Preeti Tulsidas Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2643
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This petition is filed by the detenue herself, who has been detained by the first respondent under the provisions of Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, by an order dated 24-2-98. It is suggested that the detenue was intercepted at Madras International Airport on 7-1-98 while she was travelling to Singapore, when it was found that she was carrying 37,000 Deutshe Marks equivalent to about Rs. 8,11,110/-. She was also having Indian Currency and this foreign currency which was found on her but not declared by her. After the usual formalities, she was arrested and later on detained by the impugned order dated 24-2-98. It will not be necessary for us to go into the factual details of the detention in view of the singular point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The learned counsel points out that the petitioner had sent a representation dated 9-3-98 to the Central Government and this ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »