Chennai Court March 1999 Judgments
K. Ayyamuthu and Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC17
ORDER1. Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to quash those proceedings on various grounds.2. Since identical grounds have been raised in all these cases, the same are being disposed of by the following common order.3. For the convenience, I shall refer the facts in Writ Petition No. 6799 of 1997. It is stated that the villagers of Pottaneri including the petitioners are small fanners and the agriculture is sole source of their livelihood. The entire lands of Pottaneri are subject matter of impugned land acquisition for the purpose of establishing coke-oven plant by a public limited company by name Southern Iron and Steel Company Ltd., (SISCOL) co-promoted by Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) and Lakshmi Mchine Works Ltd. (LMW). An extent of 523 acres of land had been acquired already in or about 1991-1992 for the said Company; out of which an extent of 120 acres alone was utilised...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishnan G. Vs. Manager (P and A), Oil and Natural Gas Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ1608Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J1. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorarified-mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order dated February 18, 1999, made in M(11)/SCRO/E-III, retiring the petitioner from respondent's service on March 31, 1999, on reaching his age of 58 years and to direct the respondents to continue to employ the petitioner upto 60 years.2. According to Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner joined as Security Supervisor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1983 as a contract labourer, through a Contractor called Thai Security. Thereafter, the petitioner continued as a contract labourer from the year 1987 through another contractor viz. Priyadharashini Indira Gandhi Security Services Society. However, by order dated January 21, 1988 of the respondent Corporation, the petitioner was employed as Security supervisor directly by the respondent Corporation and thus the petitioner continues to be employed as Security Supervisor in the r...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyamuthu and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ4
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions to quash those proceedings on various grounds.2. Since identical grounds have been raised in all these cases, the same are being disposed of by the following common order.3. For the convenience, I shall refer the facts in Writ Petition No.6799 of 1997. It is stated that the villagers of Pottaneri including the petitioners are small farmers and the agriculture is sole source of their livelihood. The entire lands of Pottaneri are subject matter of impugned land acquisition for the purpose of establishing coke-oven plant by a public limited company by name Southern Iron and Steel Company Ltd., (SISCOL) co-promoted by Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) and Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., (LMW). An extent of 523 acres of land had been acquired already in or about 1991-92 for the said company out of which an extent of 120 acres alo...
Tag this Judgment!State by the Food Inspector, Villupuram Municipality Rep. by Public Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)523; 1999(2)CTC394
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The issue referred to us for decision is as to whether the Sanitary Inspector (who is appointed as a Food Inspector under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954) working in a particular division ofthe Municipality could validly collect the samples out of food articles and take action under the Act from another division for which he is not working as a Sanitary Inspector.2. The following factual matrix will help to understand the controversy involved:The Food Inspector, Villupuram, filed a complaint against the accused Jothi, son of Rajagopal for offences under Section & (2) read with Section 2(ix) (j) and (k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). In his complaint, it was inter alia contended that on 18.12.1985 at about 12.40 P.M. the said Food Inspector inspected the Sherbet (Syrup) shop owned by the accused at Villupuram Town Bus-stand and after intr...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Velusamy Vs. the Government of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Mad42
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 16-5-1994 petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and for direction to the first respondent to revive the Sutantara Sainik Samman Pension to him from January, 1974 onwards with 18 per cent interest.2. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner that he had participated in Quit India Movement during 1942. He suffered imprisonment for a period of six months along with other freedom fighters and he was also imprisoned at Madurai Central Jail along with Mr. V. Muthu, Ex. M.L.A. who was in the same Jail at that time. On the application of the petitioner he was sanctioned pension by the first respondent underthe Scheme from November, 1973. All of a sudden without any notice his pension was stopped. He made several representations. It is further stated that, totally the first respondent sanctioned pension to 54 freedom fighters in their order dated 23-11-1976 and out of 54 persons, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Naicker and ors. Vs. Janakirama Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ648
K. Sampath, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 211 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Polur, are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondent filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of several items of properties, We are only concerned with S. No. 210/ 1-A and S. No. 210/3-A in Arunagirimangalam village, Kalasapakkam Sub District in North Arcot District.2. The case of the respondent was that he purchased the several items in the suit from their owners Vinayagamurthy and Santhanam under Ex.A-1 dated 2.8.1980 and Ex.A-2 dated 16.9.1980. The purchase by him included 3/4th right in the well in S. No. 210/1-A. He had originally owned l/4th share in the well and after the purchase by him now he became entitled to the entirety of the well in S. No. 210/1 -A and notwithstanding the fact that the appellants knew about his purchase, they colluded with Vinayagamurthy, one of the vendors of the respondent, and created an antedated document and on the strengt...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aurobindo Memorial Fund Society
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: [2001]247ITR93(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to us for our consideration :'(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the donations of Rs. 7,25,000 made by the assessee to other institutions would tantamount to application of income for charitable purposes, thus, satisfying the requirements of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the capital gains of Rs. 28,000 arising out of sale of Bhagalpur garden should be exempted under Section 11(1A) ?' 2. During the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee-trust has donated funds amounting to Rs. 7,25,000 to Matriseva Trust, Aurobindo Action and Service Trust. The assessee-trust claimed deduction. The Income-tax Officerrejected the claim of the assessee-trust. On appeal, the Commissioner of I...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasuriya Vs. the Director of School Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad362
N.K. Jain, Actg. C.J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 31-8-1998 in W.P. Nos. 7964 and 8812 of 1998, whereby the writ petitions were dismissed.2. It is alleged that the appellants were the students of the third respondent school is I and III Standards. A Teacher of the third respondent school punished the appellants for not doing the home work. Parents of the appellants took objection to the action of the teacher and reported the matter to the authorities. Subsequently, the teacher was also removed from service. It is also alleged that the parents of the appellants along with a politician again and again created problems to the school authorities. The third respondent/ school by letter dated 25-4-1998 requested the parents of the Appellants to receive the transfer certificates of the appellants. Aggrieved by the same the appellants filed the writ petition.3. The learned single Judge, on consideration, dismissed both the writ petitions. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Soft Beverages (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR194(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing soft drinks, as a licensee for the brands known as Coca Cola and Fanta. The soft drinks manufactured by it were sold in bottles. The assessee had huge stocks of bottles, in the year 1977, in which year the Coca Cola company withdrew from the Indian market, as it was not willing to comply with certain conditions which the Government of India wanted it to comply with. The assessee-company claimed that the huge stock of bottles kept by it was a dead loss to it and claimed the value thereof as a deduction in the assessment year 1978-79.2. The Tribunal has allowed the claim, after, inter alia, holding that it was not a capital loss as has been held by the appellate authority. The Revenue has caused this reference to be made.3. The question referred to us is 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the loss of Rs. 20,37,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Matriseva Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR20(Mad)
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred to us for our consideration :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the donation of Rs. 31,050 made by the assessee to another institution, would tantamount to application of income for charitable purposes, thus satisfying the requirements of Section 11 and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the deficiency of funds of this year could be set-off against the earlier year's surplus ?' 2. During the assessment year 1984-85, the assessee-trust had donated a sum of Rs. 31,050 to another charitable trust known as the service trust. The assessee-trust claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act, which Was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal had ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »