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.
V. Guruvaiah Naidu and Sons Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: (2002)174CTR(Mad)100
N.K. Jain, Actg. C.J.The reference in T.C. No. 700/84 is placed before us to answer the following question :In view of the decisions of various High Courts, including this court cited supra, whether this court was correct in rendering its decision in V. Guruvaiah Naidu & Sons v. CIT : [1995]216ITR156(Mad) while interpreting the provisions of section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. In T.C. No. 1490/85 the following question of law has been referred to this court by the Appellate Tribunal for consideration and opinion of this court.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act on the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee on packing materials, lorry freight, harbour dues, steamer freight and other incidental expenses ?3. So far as the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction with reference to p...
Ramasami Gounder and 3 Others Vs. Muthayammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad363; 1999(2)CTC310
ORDER1. Defendants 3 to 6 in O.S.No.152 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Namakkal are the revision petitioners and the plaintiffs therein are the respondents herein. That suit is for partition and separate possession. Defendants 3 to 6 filed an application namely, I.A.No. 1165 of 1993 under Order 18 Rule 3A of the C.P.C. to examine the witnesses to the 'Will' dated 17.3.82 before the third defendant is examined. That application was dismissed on merits. Hence the present revision before this court. 2. I heard Mr. R. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. K. Kuppusamy learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Order 18, Rule 3A of the C.P.C. do not prescribe any time limit by which an application should be moved and according to him that application can be filed even after the examination of some of the witnesses on the side of the party, who moves that application. The fact that...
K. Kabali Vs. the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC450; [1999(82)FLR800]; (1999)IIMLJ561
ORDER1. By consent of all the parties concerned the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to engage an advocate to appear for him in the departmental proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge sheet issued by the first respondent dated 9.7.96 and direct the respondents to conduct a common enquiry in respect of the deliquents involved in the same case which is the subject matter of the said charge sheet.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents.4. Since the issue is very limited, viz., whether the petitioner may be permitted to engage an advocate to assist him during the enquiry, it is unnecessary to refer the particulars regarding charges made against him and other proceedings.5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents by drawing my attention to Rule 153.8 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 wo...
P. Tamilarasan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Commissioner and Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad282; 1999(1)CTC586
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: He purchased under Registered Sale Deed dated 31.12.1986 agricultural lands in Survey No. 332/1 from M/s. Subramaniam, Paramasivam and Kannan situated in Pernampet Village, Gudiattam Taluk, North Arcot District. Subsequent to the purchase of the said land's he had effected change in all the Revenue Records and other authorities. He is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands right from the date of his purchase. While so, he received a notice from the third respondent herein dated 20.9.1991 inter alia stating that the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been wrongly given to his vendors and petitioner was directed to meet him to collect the amount which has been refunded by the vendors. It is further stated that only when he received the above mentioned notice on 22.9.1991 he came to know that proceed...
Ranganathan and Another Vs. Damodaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC446
ORDER1. The defendants are the appellants herein. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for injunction on the following grounds:- The suit property viz., Survey No. 162/7, measuring 8 cents, originally belonged to the grand father of the plaintiff Thiruvengada Gounder and his brothers Ramasamy Gounder, Subba Gounder and Vaiyapuri Gounder. They were in possession and enjoyment of the same. Thiruvengada Gounder died leaving the plaintiff's father became entitled to two cents out of the same. The paternal uncle of the plaintiff viz., Vaiyapuri Gounder sold his two cents to one Periasamy Gounder on 1.3.1932. The same was purchased along with other properties from periasamy Gounder by the plaintiff's father on 25.2.1932. On 31.8.1940, from the wife of Ramaswamy Gounder and his son, two cents out of the same was purchased. Later, the remaining two cents were purchased from Subba Gounder. Thus, the plaintiff's father was in possession of the 8 cents till his death. After ...
Udaya Elangovan (Minor) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad286
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The petitioner herein is minor Udaya Elangovan represented by her mother and seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the petitioner's mark-sheet in the Entrance Examination of Tamil Nadu Professional Courses conducted in May, 1998. 2. The petitioner's case is that the belongs to the Backward Community and has throughout been a very bright student of Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School and that she had secured 88.5% marks in the aggregate in the Tenth Standard Examination. She also appeared in the Plus Two Examination, but she did not secure marks up to her expectation. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the Entrance Examination which is conducted for the Professional Courses, but she did not get ' the marks up to her expectations. The petitioner points out that the results in the Entrance Examination were shocking and she has quoted a number of examples suggesting that there were number of irregularities inasmuch as th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Ganapathy Mills Company Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR879(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has held that the payments towards provident fund and employees State insurance having been made within the grace time allowed under the relevant statute, those amounts are required to be deducted in the computation of the taxable income of the assessee. It has also been held that the air-conditioners used in the rooms where the computers are kept in the mill of the assessee also qualify for investment allowance. If the air-conditioning is required for the optimum use of the computer and its safe-working, such air-conditioners would also to be eligible for investment allowance, just as an electrical appliance such as a stabilizer which is essentially an adjunct to an electrical equipment which is sensitive to voltage fluctuations, would be.2. We have also in other earlier tax cases taken a similar view. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition.Tax case petition is dismissed....
K. Kabali Vs. the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ66
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. By consent of all the parties concerned the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner has approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to engage an advocate to appear for him in the departmental proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the charge sheet issued by the first respondent dated 9.7.1996 and direct the respondents to conduct a common enquiry in respect of the delinquents involved in the same case which is the subject matter of the said charge sheet.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents.4. Since the issue is very limited, viz., whether the petitioner may be permitted to engage an advocate to assist him during the enquiry, it is unnecessary to refer the particulars regarding charges made against him and other proceedings.5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents by drawing my attention to Rule 153.8 of Railway Protection...
Mohandoss Vs. Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1999
Reported in: 2000(117)ELT23(Mad)
A. Raman, J.1. Of the prosecution case is that the accused was found in possession of Poppy Straw known as 'Posca Pattai', a narcotic drug valued at Rs. 6,000/-, without any valid licence or permit and thus, he is guilty under Section 8(c) read with Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.2. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, four witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs. PI to P12 and M.Os. 1 to 6 were marked. The Special Judge, for Essential Commodities Cases at Pudukottai, by his Judgment dated 11-3-1996, found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years and also directed that he should pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said convicted and sentence, this appeal is preferred by the accused.3. Though on behalf of the prosecution, four witnesses were examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 turned hostile. The evidence of P.W. 4, the Inspector of Police, is to the followin...
B.S. Gandhi Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Its Deputy Director Enforcemen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC601; 1999(114)ELT11(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to forthwith return to the petitioner US $ 12,500 along with interest yielded so far and documents of five sheets seized from the possession of the petitioner on 17.3.1993.2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 17.3.1993 the officers of the respondent searched the office and residential premises of the petitioner and as a result of that US $ 12,500 and documents were seized from the petitioner. Relying on Section 41 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition on the basis that the proceedings as contemplated under Sections 51 or 56 have not been initiated within six months of seizure and so the respondent cannot retain the documents without returning the same.3. The respondent filed a counter stating that proceedings under the Act have been initiated against the petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »