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.
Anna Perundhu Nilaya Vattara Viyaparigal Sangam (Regd.) and Etc. Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad358
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above writ petitions relate to the proposal of shifting of public bus stand viz. Anna Municipal Bus Stand of Patayamkottai Road, Tuticorin, (hereinafter referred to as 'the old bus stand') to the new site at Sankarperi village in Ward No. 4 of Tuticorin Municipal Limits (hereinafter referred to as the 'New Bus Stand').3. W.P. Nos. 6630 and 6631 of 1993 were filed by the stage carriage operators, plying their buses from Tuticorin to Kovilpatti.4. W.P. No. 17597 of 1993 was filed by the shop owners having their place of business at New Bus Stand, Tuticorin.5. W.P. No. 17855 of 1993 was filed by the Consumer Rights Protection Federation, Tuticorin.6. It is not in dispute that the Tuticorin Municipality, by its resolution dated 9-1-1987, resolved to construct a new bus stand at Sankarpeti village in Ward No. 4 of Tuticorin Municipal Limits in an area of about 13 .44 acres, abutting at Ettayapuram road, at the cost of 1 .20 crores and to shift the then existing...
Ponnuswamy Vs. L. Guruswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2353
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The common question that arises in all these revisions is this :Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate has got the jurisdiction to try the Economic Offences triable by the First Class Magistrate, when once the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate has been upgraded to the rank of District Judge? 2. Ponnuswamy, the petitioner herein, an accused in C. C. Nos. 235 to 244 of 1990 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Combater, has approached this Court in these revisions challenging the orders passed by the trial Court dismissing the applications filed by him requesting for transfer of the cases to some other Judicial Magistrate as the Chief Judicial Magistrate has been elevated as District Judge, or else, he would lose his right to file an appeal before the District Court, in the event of conviction.3. The short facts are:- In the year 1990, the complainant-Income Tax Officer, the respondent herein filed 10 complaints in C....
S. Krishnammal (Died) and ors. Vs. Veeraputhiran Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ38
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No. 609 of 1979 and the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 224 of 1980 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Ambasamudram, have filed the Second Appeal Nos.2062 and 2063 of 1985 respectively.2. The case in brief is as follows: The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 609 of 1979 filed a suit for partition and separate possession and enjoyment of their half share in the plaint schedule properties, which were intended for joint enjoyment by plaintiffs defendants 1 and 4. Till the lifetime of the 1st defendant. The schedule properties belonged to the 1st defendant and she executed a registered settlement deed on 23.1.1978 in favour of the plaintiffs and the 4th defendant. According to the document, the plaintiffs, and defendants 1 and 4 have joint life estate without any power for alienation. During the lifetime of the 1st defendant and after her death only the 4th defendant will have only life interest without any power of alienation. After th...
Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)163CTR(Mad)234; [1999]240ITR910(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee has incurred liability for payment of interest by reason of delay in filing the return and not paying theadvance tax in time. While making the assessment accordingly interest was added. The assessee's grievance is that before adding interest, the assessee should have been given show-cause notice and heard in the matter. 2. Counsel for the assessee relied on the observation made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M. G. Brothers v. CIT : [1985]154ITR695(AP) . Those observations, however, are purely obiter at the end of the paragraph relied on it has been recorded by the court thus. 'Since, however, this question is not referred to us, we are not going into the matter.' 3. That judgment, therefore, does not in any way support the case put forth by the assessee. 4. The duties of an assessee are amply made known by several provisions of the Act with which the assessee is required to comply. Filing a return in time and paying the advance tax...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. English Electric Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: (2000)161CTR(Mad)235; [2000]243ITR512(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a manufacturer of electrical goods. Its accounts are maintained in mercantile system. For the assessment year 1984-85, it had valued its closing stock at cost. The valuation so made, according to the Assessing Officer, was incorrect as it did not include the assessee's liability for payment of excise duty. That view of the Income-tax Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal on further appeal held that the excise duty payable on the closing stock did not form part of the value of the closing stock.2. It was submitted by counsel for the Revenue that the liability for payment of excise duty arises at the point of manufacture and, therefore, that liability goes to increase the value of the stock awaiting sale. This argument proceeds on a misconception. The stock which the assessee has at the end of the financial year is required to be valued at cost meaning thereby all the costs incurred by the assessee for the purpose of manufacturing...
Kitherian Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2405
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Kitherian, the appellant herein, challenging the conviction under Section 302. IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him in SC No. 214/87 on the file of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli, has filed this appeal.2. Originally, the appellant (Al) and Moses Maskaranas (A2) were charged and tried for the murder of one Jesu Antony. The trial Court acquitted A2 and convicted the appellant alone. The skeleton which is required for the disposal of this appeal could be summarised as follows:--(a) Both the prosecution party and the accused party belong to Kuthenkuzhi village. The deceased Jesu Antony was a fisherman owning 'Kattumaram' and used to go into sea for catching fish. P.W. 1 Antony Kitherian and P.W. 2 Arulappan also used to accompany the deceased. P.W. 3 Babu is also another Kattumaram owner. Both the accused, Al, the appellant herein and A2 are fish merchants.(b) The fateful occurrence took place on 30-8-86 at about 5-00 p.m. On that ...
M. Dinakaran Vs. the Director of School Education (Elementary Schools) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ488
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges his dismissal from the services as a teacher and contends that the said dismissal being without holding any departmental enquiry or giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard is per se bad.2. Following facts will highlight the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Higher Grade Teacher in the institution run by the 4th respondent. He has been working as teacher since 8.11.1961 and was promoted as a secondary grade teacher from 1.6.1976. The school where he was working is a government aided middle school. It is the petitioner's case that it is also governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act, 1973 and Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Rules, 1974. The petitioner pleads that since he opposed the irrational and incorrect policies of the 4th respondent school Management, the Management was annoyed with him and as such he was transferred on 3.7.1984 to an...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. English Electric Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN401(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.The assessee is a manufacturer of electrical goods. Its accounts are maintained in mercantile system. For the assessment year 1984-85, it had valued its closing stock at cost. The valuation so made, according to the assessing officer, was incorrect as it did not include the assessee's liability for payment of excise duty. That view of the Income Tax Officer was confirmed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal on further appeal held that the excise duty payable on the closing stock did not form part of the value of the closing stock.2. It was submitted by the counsel for the revenue that the liability for payment of excise duty arises at the point of manufacture and, therefore, that liability goes to increase the value of the stock awaiting sale. This argument proceeds on a misconception. The stock which the assessee has at the end of the financial year is required to be valued at cost meaning thereby all the costs incurred by the assessee for the purpose of manufactur...
B. Viswanathan and ors. Vs. B. Chandrasekaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ608
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.1. The defendants 1 to 3 are appellants.2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:The plaintiff and third defendant are the son and daughter of late Balasubramanian Pillai through his first wife. The second defendant is the daughter and the first defendant is the son of late Balasubramanian Pillai through his second wife. His family members have entered into a registered family arrangement on 14.11.1969. As per the family arrangement 'A' Schedule properties were allotted to the father of the plaintiff. As per the said document, he should enjoy the properties absolutely and if any surplus is available after his death 1/4th share should be taken by the third defendant and the remaining 3/4th share should be equally taken by the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3. Balasubramaniya Pillai died on 6.7.77 without alienating any of his property. Alienation for legal and family necessity alone was intended in the family arrange...
Thangamani Vs. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC247; (1999)IIMLJ165
ORDER1. The unsuccessful tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court and she has filed the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal dated 30.11.1998 in M.P.No.43 of 1998 in R.C.A.No.1513 of 1996 on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Madras. 2. The facts in brief is as follows: The respondent/landlord filed petitions under Sec. 10(3)(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Act as R.C.O.P.No.1256 of 1995 on the ground of willful default and R.C.O.P.No.1257 of 1995 on the ground of own occupation. The learned Rent Controller dismissed both applications on merits on 10.10.96. The Court Officer came to the residence of the petitioner and informed on 12.12.1997 that E.P.No.506 of 1997 for execution of the eviction order in the rent control petition had been filed. She came to know that E.P.No.506 of 1997 was posted for appearance on 15.12.1997 and on enquiry through counsel, she came to know that the respondent...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »