Chennai Court August 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.
Valliammal (Died) and ors. Vs. M.K. Musthafa (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: (1999)3MLJ369
P. Thangavel, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.12.1986 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chingleput and made in A.S.No. 22 of 1985, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1985 in O.S.No. 188 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurantakam.2. The facts that are necessary for deciding the substantial questions of law in this second appeal are as follows: The suit property originally belonged to Sri Kothandaramaswami Devasthanam, Madurantakam. The suit site and the adjacent property was in the occupation of Parimala Kanthiammal and she put up a thatched construction over the suit site. She was residing in the property adjacent to the suit site. Parimala Kanthammal usufracturarily mortgaged the superstructure over the suit site to one Rathina Naicker and his wife Lakshmi Ammal on 26.8.1953, who, in turn was collecting the rent from Parimala Kanthammal by putting her in possession of the said property. The said Parima...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jaya Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1999
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN612(Mad)
Subbulakshmy, J. At the instance of the revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to us:'1. Whether on the facts and in the of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 69D of the Income Act, 1961, did not apply in respect of the borrowals of the 'hundi' loans which were not made through account payee cheques and in confirmimg the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard?2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the documents executed by the assessee in favour of his creditors should not be treated as' 'hundi' within the meaning of section 69D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable in law ?'Similar questions have been considered by this Court in CIT v. Paranjothi Aalt Co. [1995] 211 ITR 141 and this Court has held against the revenue. The finding of the Tribunal is that the documents executed by the assessee in favour of the creditors are pronotes, and not hundies is a question of fact, and it does not warra...
K.R. Manickam Vs. P. Kumaravel and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC15; (2000)1MLJ204
ORDER1. The unsuccessful plaintiff, in getting a decree for specific performance of the agreement, has filed the above Appeal.2. The first defendant is the owner of the suit property and he negotiated a sale agreement with the plaintiff and they entered into an agreement of sale on 1.9.1979, with respect to the suit property. The plaintiff has been in possession as a lessee of the same. The sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs. 49,000 and the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 4,501 to the first defendant on 1.9.1979. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the plaintiff has to settle and discharge the loan amount on behalf of the 1St. defendant, payable to M/s. Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. The 1St. defendant has to execute a sale deed after receiving the sale price within a month in favour of the plaintiff at his expenses. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation and requested the 1st defendant to accompany him to M/s. Suda...
Abdullah Kadher Batcha Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Custo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC235; 2000(67)ECC55
ORDER1. It appears that the petitioner has reliably understood that the respondents are taking certain proceedings against him, with regard to an alleged act of smuggling said to have taken place on 14.5.1999 for non-declaration of certain goods brought by him from Singapore, by Singapore Airlines, under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'COFEPOSA').2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner is illegal and invalid, inasmuch as the very market value of the goods, which is the subject matter of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, are estimated to the tune of Rs. 10,82,250, without taking into account a sum of Rs.1,00,000 towards the value of the goods declared by him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the value of the goods shall be only a sum of Rs. 9, 82,250, if the value of t...
Mayamuthu and Four Others Vs. State by Inspector of Police Penagudi Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)CTC238
ORDER1. Petitioners/accused 1 to 5 in S.C.No. 472 of 1997 on the file of learned II Additional Sessions Judge Tirunelveli have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, not to treat the Court witness 1 as an hostile witness.2. The case in brief is as follows:The petitioner are facing trial in S.C. 472 of 1997 for alleged offences under Section 147, 148, 341, 326, 324, 307 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C. P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and cross examined. On 16.7.1999 P.W. 6 to 13 were examined and cross examined, on 19.7.1999 P.Ws. 14 and 15 were examined and cross examined case was adjourned to 22.7.1999 for further adjudication. At this juncture, the learned trial Judge issued summons to one Ebenezar, son of David who is supposed to be an independent eye witness. Since the learned Public Prosecutor, had already dispensed with the examination of the said witness, he was summoned as a court witness. The said witness appeared before the court on 22.7.1999 and he w...
Workmen of Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: [2001]247ITR111(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner/employees-union has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents herein not to enforce any assessment of income-tax and penalty proceedings leading to the recovery from the wages of the workers without giving an opportunity of being heard to the members of the petitioner-union.2. The case of the petitioner is that originally certain deductions have been made from the tax liability on the ground that the amount paid represents house rent allowance. Subsequently, it has been found that the benefit given by the authorities does not represent the house rent allowance, but is only a conveyance allowance which is not permissible for deduction. Hence, the income-tax authorities started recovery proceedings against the third respondent herein, the employer. The employer has also made the payment as there was no dispute with regard to the payment of the amount to the members of the petitioner-union, re...
Parthasarathy, P.N. Vs. Management of TuticorIn Alkali Chemicals and F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: (2000)ILLJ32Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent made in T.S.E. Appeal No. 36 of 1996 dated November 8, 1997 the petitioner has filed the above writ petition on various grounds.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:According to him he has joined as Manager (Finance) in the first respondent Company on December 15, 1984. He was confirmed on June 14, 1985 and was promoted as Chief Manager (Finance) from December 15, 1986. He was confirmed in this post on June 14, 1987. The management of the first respondent Company was taken over by SPIC in May, 1991. He was promoted as Joint General Manager (Finance) from November 1, 1993. On October 10, 1994 a typed letter of voluntary retirement was brought to him by the Chief Manager (Administration & Personnel), wherein he was forced to sign the letter of voluntary retirement effective from December 15, 1994. He was shocked by the above treatment. He sent lawyer notices on November 5, 1994 and November 8, 1...
Sekar Vs. Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1552
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petitioner Sekar has filed two revision petitions (Cri. RC 585 and 586 of 1999) aggrieved against the orders passed in Cri MPs 1530 and 2049 of 1999 respectively in C.C. 121 of 1999 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, petitioner in Cri. R.C. 658/99 has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Trichy in Cri R.C. No. 117/98 dated 26-2-1999.2. The case in brief for the disposal of all these revision petitions is as follows :Petitioner Sekar filed petition under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking custody of the lorry bearing registration No. TN-45/D 5649 and also petition under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for production of the said lorry before the Court. He filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate for an offence under Section 379, IPC on the ground that the vehicle in question had been taken away by the respondent. The complaint was ...
Workmen of Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN520(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner /Employees Union has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents herein not to enforce any assessment of income-tax and penalty proceedings leading to the recovery from the wages of the workers without giving an opportunity of being heard to the members of the petitioner- Union.2. The case of the petitioner is that originally certain deductions have been made from the tax liability on the ground that the amount paid represents house rent allowance. Subsequently, it has been found that the benefit given by the authorities does not represent the house rent allowance, but is only a conveyance allowance which is not permissible for deduction. Hence, the income-tax authorities started recovery proceedings against the third respondent herein, the employer. The employer has also made the payment as there was no dispute with regard to the payment of the amount to the members of the petitioner-Union, which paymen...
The Brick and Tile Manufacturers Association, Rep. by Mr. D. Nagarajan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)CTC698
ORDER1. Petitioners are Associations of Brick Manufactures. Both the Associations have prayed for the issue of a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the respondent's, namely the Union of India from treating the agricultural earth as mineral and render justice.2. The case of the petitioner Associations is that the members of the Associations own patta lands and they are removing the agricultural earth for the purpose of mixing it with slurry collected in the village tanks etc. to make bricks or tiles, as the case may be. The earth is removed and transported to Brick Kilnsites for the purpose of manufacturing the bricks. For removal of agricultural earth, according to the petitioners, no lease or licence is required. All these years, no such licence or lease was insisted upon. They also admit that some of the members have obtained leases for removing Soudu, which is a loose type of earth, and there is no provision regarding the granting or regulating of leases to agricultural earth. Whileso,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »