Chennai Court March 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. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: [2000]242ITR734(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Counsel for the Revenue has placed before us the following two questions as reframed by him, which he submits are questions which require consideration by this court : '1, Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the additions of Rs. 19,726 and Rs. 1,01,301 made to the chargeable interest as per the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 19 of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the transaction between the assessee and the Agricultural Development Refinance Corporation and the Industrial Development Bank of India and the transaction of lending of money by the assessee-bank to its constituents should be viewed as one integrated transaction and only the net interest accrued to the assessee should be brought to tax ?' 2. As regards the first question, it is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the Revenue that in respect of the sum ...
State Represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Renuka Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2955
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Crl. R.C. No. 318/98 and Crl. R.C. No. 334/98 are being disposed of by this common order, as the issues and the parties in both the matters are the same.2. By the order dated 10-2-98, the learned Principal Special Judge, for C.B.I. Cases, Chennai allowed Crl. M.P. Nos. 206 and 207 of 1997 and directed the C.B.I., the petitioner herein to return the documents seized which are mentioned as Item Nos. 45, 46, 47, 53, 77, 79 to 82 and 84 in the search list prepared at the time of seizure imposing some conditions. This order is sought to be challenged before this Court in both these Revisions by the Inspector of Police SPE/CBI/ ACB, Chennai.3. The brief facts are as follows :--(a) On 3-9-97 one Radhakrishnan, the husband of the respondent Renukadevi, while working as U.D.C. at the office of the Director, Board of Apprentice Training, Taramani, Chennai, accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/- from one Manimaran, a diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering, as a ...
Asstt. Collr., Spl. Invgn. Bureau Vs. Mysore Insecticides Co. P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1999
Reported in: 1999(108)ELT617(Mad)
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. This appeal filed by the Assistant Collector, Special Investigation Bureau, Customs House, Madras is directed against the Judgment dated 17-5-1989 in E.O.C.C. No. 832/87 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - E.O.I., Egmore, Madras acquitting the respondents in respect of the offence under Section 135(1)(a) read with 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act.2. The accusation made by the complainant/ appellant in the complaint filed against the respondents (Al to A3) is that A1 company had a private bonded warehouse licensed by the Customs Department in the company's factory premises. Between 1982 and 1983, the company imported various raw materials for manufacturing insecticidal formulations and kept at the private bonded warehouse and company clandestinely removed the same between 1982 and 1986 from the said bonded warehouse without the knowledge of the customs authorities and thereby evaded payment of duty to the tune of Rs. 15,92,335/-.3. The f...
Sherene Vs. the Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC8
ORDERJudgement pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The petitioner herein challenges the detention order in respect of one Sahir Hussain, the husband of the petitioner detaining the said Sahir Hussain under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.1980. The order is passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. 2. Since the learned counsel restricts his submission only to the delayed consideration of the representation sent to the Central Government, we need not advert to the facts involved and the reasons behind the detention order. 3. Learned counsel points out that after the detention order was passed and was served on the petitioner on 26.4.1998, two representations were sent, one dated 10.5.1998 and another dated 5.6.1998. It seems, learned counsel submits that these representations were rejected and an intimation to that affect was given vide order dated 5.10.1998. Learned counsel points out that this rejection order dated 5.10.1998 refers to both the re...
Mansion Owners Association Rep. by Its Secy Mr.P.K. Khader Mohideen Ha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ2547; 1999(2)CTC456
ORDER1. In all the writ petitions, the common question is whether the respondents can insist the petitioners to produce licence under Section 35 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Admittedly, the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 2503 and 3340 of 1999 and the members of the petitioner/association in W.P.No. 2728 of 1999 are doing business of conducting mansion/guest houses. According to them, the mansion, guest houses are buildings consisting of several rooms, where bachelors and married persons who do not have family within the city of Chennai are permitted to stay on a monthly rent basis sharing accommodation in rooms. The tourists are also accommodated in the guest houses/mansions run by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the monthly rent is collected in advance, and thereby create a tenancy for limited period. With respect to the tourists, it is stated charges are being collected on a package system and no separate amount is collected for...
S. Chandra Vs. the Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Electricity B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC38
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks employment for her son S.Ravi, on compassionate ground, under the second respondent-Board as the petitioner's husband died on 8.11.1995, while he was in service. However, by the impugned proceedings dated 16.10.1997 the second respondent rejected therequest of the petitioner to appoint her son, on compassionate ground, merely because the petitioner's son had not passed 7th standard.2. It is not in dispute that the Board, by their proceedings dated 11.1.1993, even though had fixed a pass in 8th standard as the minimum qualification to appoint the dependents of the employees who die during their service, on compassionate ground, as Office Helper or Helper, the same is relaxed in the case of the dependent of the employees who die in accident, during their service. In other words, the dependents of the employees of the Board, who die in accident during their service, shall be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, even though they have not passed e...
Periyar District Consumer-co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. Vs. Appel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: (2000)IIILLJ325Mad
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The petitioner is a registered co-operative society. The petitioner is having one of its fair price shops at Karungalpalayam, Erode. The second respondent herein was an employee employed as a sales-man. There was an inspection in the abovesaid shop by the flying squad led by Special Tahsildar, Erode and the flying squad detected shortage of 126 litres of palm oil. According to the petitioner the second respondent as a salesman was solely responsible for the stock and distribution of essential commodities. The petitioner has averred that the first respondent has admitted the shortage of palm-oil before the inspection squad. The second respondent, thereafter, was placed under suspension and the second respondent through a statement dated March 26, 1984 admitting the shortage, claimed that the packer Kanagaraj, who was working on daily wages was solely responsible for shortage. The petitioner has stated that the packer Kanagaraj was engaged on daily wages, ...
Danday Knit Garments and anr. Vs. Subiksha Spinners (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: [2003]115CompCas307(Mad); 2000CriLJ624
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The petitioners/accused filed the revision aggrieved against the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 2410 of 1998 in C. C. No. 119 of 1997 dated September 2, 1998, on the file of Judicial Magistrate III, Dindigul.2. The case in brief for the disposal of the revision is as follows :The respondent through power agent S. Swami Anandan, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'N. I. Act'), against the first petitioner firm and the second petitioner, the proprietor. The complaint was taken on file as in C C. No. 119 of 1997 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Dindigul. The copy of the power of attorney was also filed in the case. Thiru L Subramaniam, Director of limited company has given the power of attorney. The notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was also issued on behalf of the proprietor of the mills to the petitioners. P.W. 1, Swami Anandan was also examined in court, P.W. 2 t...
A. Satish Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ302
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition aggrieved against the order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 8.12.1998 under which the community certificate issued to the petitioner has been cancelled.2. According to the petitioner, he was admitted B.D.S. degree course in the year 1995-96 in the 2nd respondent college. He got admission on the basis that he belongs to Scheduled Caste, namely, Hindu Devendarkulathan Community, The said admission was secured on the basis of the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Chingleput, dated 12.7.1994, who is the competent authority to issue community certificate. Even before the issuance of the said community certificate, the petitioner seems to have obtained another community certificate from the Tahsildar, Cheyyur, dated 5.10.1991.3. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother Dr. Latha belongs to Scheduled Caste and his father Dr. G. Alaxandar belongs to Gavara Community which comes under the backwa...
The Superintending Engineer, Tneb BasIn Bridge, Power House, Chennai-1 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad365; 1999(2)CTC614
ORDER1. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.664 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Ponneri and the respondent is the sole plaintiff in that suit. That suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from digging or erecting any post in the suit property and drawing high tension supply line in and over the suit property. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed an application namely, I.A.No. 1701 of 1996 for an interim orderwhich is more or less on the same lines as prayed for in the plaint. The learned trial Judge granted an order of injunction as prayed for. The defendants appealed in C.M.A. No. 28 of 1997 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Thiruvallur and the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the said appeal on merits. Hence the present revision before this Court at the instance of the defendants in the suit.2. I heard Mr. V. Rengapashyam, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. J. Pothiraj, learned counsel appearing for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »