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.
Vijay Hemant Finance and Estates Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: [1999]238ITR282(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the first respondent dated March 4, 1996, and to direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to rectify the defects pointed out in the letter of the first respondent dated December 21, 1995, found in the declaration in Form No. 15H filed by the petitioner along with the annual return in Form No. 27A, dated May 24, 1995, under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1994-95.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are, the first respondent by his order passed under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), dated March 4, 1996, treated the writ petitioner as an 'assessee in default' in respect of a sum of Rs. 29,029 being the tax that ought to have been deducted at source under Section 194A of the Act on the interest paid by the petitioner to various other persons who have made certain amount of fix...
Tiruchendur Bar Association Vs. Mrs. Jansi Rani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: 1999CriLJ3645
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Tiruchendur Bar Association represented by its Secretary, filed these two revision petitions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved against the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin in Crl. M. P. No. 181/99 and Crl. M. P. 182/99 dated 23-2-99.2. The case in brief for disposal of both the revisions is as follows:Petitioner Association filed a complaint in Crl. M. P. 439/99 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur, against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 501, IPC. They also filed a complaint in Crl. M. P. 525/99 before the same Magistrate against the Sub-Inspector of Police for the offences punishable under Sections 167 and 318, IPC. The learned Magistrate submitted the complaints and connected records to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 322(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure read with Sections 200(b) and 192(1),...
Selvaraj Vs. Amudhavalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ17
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Selvaraj, the petitioner herein, is the tenant of a non-residential building of which Amudhavalli, the respondent herein, is the landlady. Aggrieved over the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Mannargudi, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, Nagapattinam, the petitioner/tenant has filed this civil revision petition.2. The landlady/the respondent herein filed a eviction petition in the court of the Rent Controller, Mannargudi mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) bona fide personal requirement of the landlady for shifting her business to the premises in question.3. On a perusal of the evidence, the Rent Controller held that there is no wilful default in payment of rents. However, he allowed the petition holding that the landlady had established her bona fide personal requirement. The Appellate Authority also agreed with the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the tenan...
Panneerselvam Vs. Muthu Thiagarajan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ714
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Panneerselvam, the proprietor of typewriting institute, the tenant under the respondent having lost in both the forums by the order of eviction has filed this civil revision petition.2. The respondent, landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground of personal use under Section 10(3)(a)(iii). Both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority concluded that the requirement for personal use was bonafide and the tenant is liable to be evicted.3. Mr. Uthirasamy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing both the orders, would contend that the eviction petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable and that admittedly the premises was let out to the petitioner by the respondent for running the educational institution viz., typewriting institute. It is also pointed out on the basis of the documents filed in this case that there is a Government recognition as well for running the said institute in the said premises.4. In Mot...
Saraswathy Represented by Her Power Agent C. Mohan Kumar Vs. the Natio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ117
ORDERM .Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Saraswathi, the landlady represented by her power agent Mohan Kumar having lost in both the authorities below, has approached this Court by filing this civil revision petition challenging the impugned orders.2. The landlady, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1989. According to her, the building in question which is used for the godown of the tenant/respondent is in a damaged condition and if the existing building is demolished and reconstructed, the petitioner would put the property for better use. She has also obtained the building licence and taken steps to have the plan approved. The petitioner bona fide requires the petition building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, since the building is old. The petitioner and her family possessed sufficient means to construct the new building.3. According to the tenant, the respondent herein, th...
Sri Balasubramania Traders Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)377
ORDERM. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.The petitioner is a partnership firm constituted under a deed of partnership dt. 30th Jan, 1987, and the firm consisted of several persons including the persons outside the family and when some difference of opinion arose, according to the petitioner a memo of understanding was reached and under the said memo, the firm suspended its business on 31st Oct., 1987, and handed over the movable assets and liabilities as per the schedule recorded in the books which were taken over by one Karthikeyan, son of Krishnan, one of the partners on 1st Nov., 1987. The said Karthikeyan was permitted to continue the trading business in the name and style of the petitioner firm.2. The writ petition relates to the asst. yr. 1990-91. The Asstt. CIT (A0) for the asst. yr. 1988-89 took the view that the memo of understanding entered into between the petitioner and the said Karthikeyan indicated that the business was not abandoned, nor the firm dissolved and the arrangement was r...
K.T. Kunjumon Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1999
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)341
ORDERM. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.The writ petition in WP No. 1425 of 1999 is filed against the order passed by the CIT Central-1, Chennai-34, dt. 18th Nov., 1998, and the prayer in the writ petition is to quash the said order and to direct the CIT to redeposit a sum of Rs. 24,25,810 in the P.D. Account of the respondent to the credit of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1994-95.2. The writ petition in WP No. 1424 of 1999 is filed against the order of the CIT, Central-1, Chennai-34, dt. 12th Jan., 1999, in C. No. Act No.0022/KVS&C.1;, and the prayer in the writ petition is to quash the said order and to direct the CIT to admit and accept the declaration filed by the petitioner under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.3. The result of the WP No. 1424 of 1999 would depend upon the result of the WP No. 1425 of 1999. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are as under :The assessment of the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1994-95 was completed by the AO viz., the ITO Film Ward H, C...
Managing Director, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation Madras-2 Vs. Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 2001ACJ441; 1999(2)CTC271
ORDER1. Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation is the appellant in all the three appeals.2. CMA.298 of 1993 is against M.C.O.P.No.l 146 of 1991 on the file ofMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Trichy for the death of one MallikarjunaSharma, the Widow and minor son have prayed for a compensation of Rs.5lakhs. The Court below on the basis of oral and documentary evidence passed an award for Rs. 1,50,000.3. CMA 299 of 1993 is against M.C.O.P.No. 1731 of 1991 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichy, wherein the claimant has prayed for a compensation of Rs.l lakh for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The tribunal has passed an awarded for Rs.15,000.4. CMA 300 of 1993 is against M.C.O.P.No: 1734 of 1991 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trichy, wherein the claimant has prayed for a compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Here again the Court below has granted a sum of Rs. 25,000.5. Heard the learned counsel fo...
Dr. Ramarao Vs. the Divisional Engineer (Telegraphs) Telegraphs Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC290
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 525 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi, who had lost the suit claim before the two Courts below is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal had arisen is the best example as to how the respondents treat the telephone subscribers and as to how a telephone subscriber suffers for no fault on his part. 2. The present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ramnad at Madurai dated 22.6.1989 made in A.S.No.38 of 1988 in confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif of Paramakudi dated 23.3.87 made in O.S. No. 535 of 1985. 3. At the time of admission, the following three substantial questions of law were framed by this Court. 1. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding that the suit is for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. when an application to dispense with notice was filed and ordered by the trial Court? 2. Whether the disconne...
Bhakthavatsalam Vidhyashram and ors. Vs. V. Veliah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1999
Reported in: 2001(1)ALD(Cri)375; [2000]101CompCas154(Mad)
K. Natarajan, J.1. As the parties are the same and the facts are similar in both these original petitions, they are taken up together and a common order is recorded.2. The petitioners in Crl. O. P. No. 16049 of 1998 are seeking for quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 409 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambatur. The petitioners in Crl. O. P. No. 19694 of 1998 are seeking for quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 408 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.3. The short facts are : The respondent/complainant filed two private complaints against the petitioners in C. C. Nos. 408 of 1997 and 409 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-}udicial Magistrate, Ambattur, alleging that the second petitioner issued ten post-dated cheques of the first petitioner, each for a sum of Rs. 2.50 lakhs. Rs. 12,50,000 was paid by the second petitioner and he had collected five cheques from the respondent. Out of the remaining five cheques, three ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »