Chennai Court April 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.
Madras Cements Ltd., Having Is Corporate Office at Auras Corporate Cen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC108
ORDER1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court having identical grievance on the letter of the 2nd respondent-Electricity Board, informing the petitioners that the 1st respondent-Government have clarified the expression 'set up', as it means 'date of service connection'. Some of the petitioners have also challenged the validity of G.O.Ms. 17, Energy dated 14.2.1997 under which the concession granted in G.O.Ms.No. 29 Energy, A-2 dated 31.1.1995 had been withdrawn. It is also brought to my notice that some of the petitioners who filed writ petitions aggrieved by the said letter of the 2nd respondent referred to above, have filed petitions to amend the prayer, to set aside the said G.O.Ms.No. 17 Energy, A-2 dated 14.2.1997.2. The petitioners have come forward with the plea that pursuant to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 29 Energy (A-2) dated 31.1.1995, they have started to establish the industry with a view to get tariff concession as mentioned therein and...
E. Chandravadanam and 4 Others Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC127; (1999)IIMLJ306
ORDER1. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint them as teachers in Computer Science on par with the teachers in other subjects and to extent all benefits of teachers in other subjects and to extend all benefits of teachers to share.2. According to the petitioners they have completed their graduation in B.Sc. (Computer Science) in March, 96, November, 94, April, 92, April, 96 and March 97 respectively and have also graduated with B.Ed. Degree in March, 97, March, 96, March, 97, April, 98 and April, 98 respectively. With the above qualifications, the petitioners have registered their names with the Employment Exchange in September, 97, May, 96, May, 98, October, 98 and October, 98 respectively, seeking appointment to the post of Teachers in Computer Science in the High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools either run by Government or Private (aided or unaided). When, thus, they are waiting for their employment opportunities, the Government have taken ...
Arockia Annai Rotary and Flour Mills by Its Owner Arockiasamy Vs. Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: AIR1999Mad263; [1999]98CompCas567(Mad); 1999(2)CTC404; (1999)IIMLJ606
ORDER1. Arockia Annai Rotary and Flour Mills by its owner Arockiasamy is the plaintiff in the money suit in O.S.No. 175 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai. After getting the suit decreed as against the defendant, the respondent herein, he filed an application for execution in E.P.No. 31 of 1992 before the above Court. The respondent objected to the said petition on the ground that the respondent also had obtained a decree for a larger amount in a separate suit against the petitioner, whereas the petitioner has obtained a decree for a lesser sum against the respondent and execution can be taken only by the holder of the decree for a larger sum, namely, the respondent after deducting the smaller sum and as such, the petition for execution filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in law and on facts.2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai passed an order on 16.4.1993 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner by upholdi...
K.M. Abdul Aziz Vs. V. Venkatachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)ALD(Cri)590; [1999]97CompCas908(Mad)
B. Akbak Basha Khadiri, J. 1. The petitioner is invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 152 of 1998 on the file of the judicial Magistrate No. 5, Tirunelveli.2. This petition has arisen in this way :The petitioner herein borrowed monies from the respondent-complainant for the petitioner's family expenses and for his business purpose. He had agreed to repay the amount in three instalments by issuing three postdated cheques. The petitioner herein issued post-dated cheques on August 7, 1997, August 22, 1997, and October 5, 1997, respectively for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000, Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000. When the three cheques were presented in the bank for collection, they were returned with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The respondent-complainant issued statutory notice to the petitioner on October 25, 1997. After receipt of notice the petitioner represented to the respondent-complainant that he would make payment during the firs...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)437; [1999]240ITR335(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The following questions of law at the instance of the Revenue have been referred to us for our consideration relating to the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,480 spent on the provision of coffee, etc., cannot be viewed as an 'entertainment expenditure' and, therefore the disallowance made in this regard was not called for ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on the maintenance of the vehicles owned by the company including the wear and tear thereon, which were provided by the company to its directors should not be treated as a 'perquisite' for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, therefore, the disallowance of the sum of Rs. 10,317 should be deleted ? 3. Whether,...
Adayar Gate Hotels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)482; [2000]241ITR279(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee which owns and operates a five star hotel at Madras is : 'whether, on the correct interpretation of Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee carrying on hotel business was not entitled to investment allowance ?' The assessment year is 1981-82.2. The assessee-company was incorporated in the year 1970. It completed the construction of the. hotel building and commenced its business only during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1981-82. During that year, it functioned only for 14 days. Its return was filed on October 24,1981, and thereafter a revised return was filed on December 13, 1983, admitting a loss of Rs. 93,69,444. The assessee-company claimed investment allowance of Rs. 46,69,663. That claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had failed to prove that the machinery or plant in respe...
M. Tara Singh Vs. the Assistant Divisional Engineer Highways and Rural ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ558
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. M. Tara Singh, challenging the order of the Appellate Authority (Principal District Judge), Cuddalore, dismissing the appeal against the order of the removal of sunshade at his shop premises, has filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner is the owner of the premises in Door No. 26-B, Main Road, Cuddalore. He is running a shop in the premises. He erected a sunshade in his building. On 25.6.1993, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works, Cuddalore, the respondent herein, issued a show cause notice under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, as to why an order of eviction should not be made in respect of the public premises of 26-B, Main Road, to the petitioner. By the reply notice dated 16.7.1993, the petitioner informed the respondent that he is the owner of the said premises and as such, there is no necessity to evict him on the ground of unauth...
Periammal and anr. Vs. Valarmathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ719
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The appellant herein challenges the order passed in W.P. No. 1077 of 1997, whereby the communication sent by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, dated 2.7.1996 has been quashed by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that the said communication amounted to a direction to cancel the licence for running a Rice Mill which was granted to Valarmathi the first respondent herein. A short summary of the facts would be necessary. The first respondent Valarmathi is a licencee. This licence has been awarded by the Village Panchayat Union for installing and running a rice mill. It seems that in pursuance of that licence, when the rice mill was being run the appellants herein made complaints against the said licensee to the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, the second respondent herein. It further seems that in pursuance of that complaint, the fourth respondent cancelled that licence, even without hearing the present first ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.G. Balakrishnan and Brothers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: [2001]247ITR131(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The facts, as found by the Commissioner, which facts have not been departed from by the Tribunal, are that the appellant-company received deposits from the members of the public and for a portion of the liability, created charge on its fixed assets by entering into a trust deed with some of its directors as trustees and registered the charge as statutorily required, with the Registrar of Companies, Madras. The deed, however, was not registered under the provisions of the Registration Act.2. The Tribunal on the short ground that the deed had not been registered under the Registration Act, upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer and reversed that of the Commissioner. It is the correctness of that decision which has been called into a question by the assessee and the Tribunal has referred the following questions to this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a valid charge or mortgage has been created by the deed of hypothecation ...
Venkatesh (Minor) and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1999
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Mad)142; [2000]243ITR367(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Though the assessees are different, the assessment year is also different, the substantial question referred to us at the instance of the assessees being common these references are being disposed of by a common order. The assessment year is 1983-84 and the question referred to us is as to whether any part of the sale consideration received by them for the sale of their shares in Anglo French Textiles Limited and Best and Co. (Pondicherry) Private Limited, is to be excluded from the computation of long-term capital gains on the ground that part of the consideration does not represent the value of the shares sold but constitutes the consideration, for the sale of right to control the company with the aid of the shares sold.2. The shares held in these two companies by one or the other of these assessees who are all members of the family of one C. R. Rajendran were agreed to be sold by them and others with the said Rajendran acting on their behalf to one Ganesh Nar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »