Chennai Court September 1999 Judgments
A.S. Mythili Vs. Ramasamy Battachariyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC132; (2000)1MLJ678
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.349 of 1990 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Trivellore, is the appellant. suit filed by the plaintiff was one for declaration that plaint scheduled property belong to her absolutely and for recovery of possession from the defendant. The material averments in the plaint could be summarised thus: 2. The property originally belonged to late Sami Battachariyar who had two sons viz., Anantha Battachariyar and Seshu Battachariyar. He had also a daughter by name Rajammal. 3. One of the sons Anantha Battachariyar died on 14.7.1970 and the other son Sashu Battachariyar died on 14.12.1974. Ananatha Battachariyar had a son by name Sethurama Batachari, he also died on 15.5.1975. The plaintiff is his widow. I have already stated that Sami Battachariyar had a daughter by name Rajammal, her son Srirama Battachari is the defendant in the suit. 4. It is admitted that between two sons there was partition and all terms plaint items were allotted to the share of Seshu...
Tag this Judgment!M/S Sugal and Damani Finlease Ltd., Rep. by Its Executive Director, Ci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC74
ORDER1.Defendant in O.S.No.1536 of 1997 on the file of II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai, is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed in O.S.No. 1536 of 1997 for the following reliefs:'(i) directing the defendant to deliver possession of the vehicle viz., Ambas-sador Diesel Car bearing Registration No.TN-02-Y -1593 together with all accessories therein including in built A/c and bearing Engine No.6ED/ -142159 and Chasis NO.ABV/754872, more fully described in the Schedule to this plaint, to the plaintiff; (ii) directing the defendant to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs.50,000 together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of Plaint till date of payment; (iii) directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 13,000 by way damages; (iv) for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant or his agents or servants from in any way dealing with the Ambassador Car (Diesel) bearing registra-tion No, TN-02-Y-1593 together with all acc...
Tag this Judgment!Dursha Shariff Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary to Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC206
ORDER1. In all, the writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking to declare Rule 91-B of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1957 introduced by G.O.Ms. No.678, Home (Cinemas-II) Department, dated 18.5.1999 as unconstitutional, illegal and void.2. Writ Petition Nos.10121 to 10126 of 1999 and 10048 to 10053 have been filed by the contractors who got right from the licensees of the respective cinema theatres to maintain parking of cars, motor-cycles and cycles in the cinema theatres and to collect fees from the vehicle owners who park their vehicles in the parking place. The Tamil Nadu Film Exhibitors Association, Coimbatore, Erode and Nilgiris Districts have filed W.P.No. 10964 of 1999 challenging the said Rule. The licensee of the theatre, has filed W.P.No.10711 of 1999, challenging the said rule.3. For the regulation of exhibition in the screening of cinematograph in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, hereinafter called 'the Act', has been enac...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Print System Products
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)110; [2000]243ITR8(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. This is another instance of the Revenue's dogged persistence in a matter which in the least warrants it. The Central Board of Direct Taxes itself had in a circular found at [1979] 117 ITR 24, inter alia, clarified the scope of the terms 'publicity' and 'sales promotion' for the purposes of Section 37(3A), inter alia, in the following terms :'As the terms 'publicity' and 'sales promotion' have a wide amplitude, expenditure incurred by taxpayers on fashion shows ; beauty contests ; consumer contests ; consumer gift offers ; and free samples or gifts will fall within the ambit of new Sub-section (3A) of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.'2. Rightly following that circular, the Income-tax Officer had allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee for the commission paid by it to others for securing orders for the imported photographic equipment, for which, admittedly, there was no ready market. The Commissioner by exercising his revisional authority interfered w...
Tag this Judgment!J. Jayalalitha Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)149; [2000]244ITR74(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The above writ petitions have been filed to quash the order in C. No. 1747/1/1997-98/C-II, dated October 15, 1997, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central II, Chennai-34, by which the petitions filed by the writ petitioner under Section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'), for waiver of interest levied under Section 220(2) of the Act as well as under Rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Act for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93 were rejected.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are that the petitioner filed applications for waiver of interest under Rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Act levied by the Tax Recovery Officer for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 11(2), Chennai, also levied interest by a separate order dated February 20, 1997, under Section 220(2) of the Act for the said assessment years, and the petit...
Tag this Judgment!J. Jayalalitha Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1999
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN476(Mad)
ORDER1. The above writ petitions have been filed to quash the order in C. No. 1747/1/97-98/C-H, dated 15-10-1997 passed by the Commissioner, Central II, Chennai-34, by which the petitions filed by the writ petitioner under section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Ihe Act') for waiver of interest levied under section 220(2) of the Act as well as under rule 5 of the H Schedule to the Act for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93 were rejected.2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions are that the petitioner filed applications for waiver of interest under rule 5 of the 111 Schedule levied by the TRO for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle H(2), Chennai, also levied interest by a separate order dated 20-2-1997 under section 220(2) for the said assessment years, and the petitioner also filed separate applications under section 220(2A) for various years mentioned earlier and the circumstances leading to the levy of interest...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. R. Jagad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)IILLJ309Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is the employer.2. W.P. No. 15988 of 1990 is directed against the award dated September 29, 1989 made in Claim Petition No. 810/1987 filed by a Mechanic, namely, the first respondent therein, awarding an overtime allowance of Rs. 660.44 for 79 hours at the rate of (4.18 x 2) i.e., Rs. 8.36 per hour for having worked for 119 hours in five days instead of the required time of 8 hours per day i.e. 40 hours when he was at the disposal of the employer and in charge of the transport of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TML 8393 from 4 a.m. on January 6, 1987 till 3 a.m. on January 11, 1987 for an outstation tourist trip between Cuddalore and Sabarimalai.3. W.P. No. 15989 of 1990 is directed against the award dated September 29, 1989 made in Claim Petition No. 809/1987 filed by a driver, namely, the first respondent therein., awarding an overtime allowance of Rs. 197.15 for 125.30 hours at the rate of (3.58 x 2) i.e., Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Settu Vs. Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1072
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Petitioner/Accused in C. C. No. 273 of 1989 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the Order passed in C. N. P. No. 2976/99 dated 30-8-99.2. The case in brief is as follows: The petitioner/accused has been charged for an offence under Section 25(l)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. Even though sanction has been obtained from the learned District Magistrate, perusal of the sanction Order would go to show that he has not strictly observed the provisions of law. It is mandatory that the provisions have to be scrupulously followed. The copy of the Order has also not been served on the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application and after hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition and aggrieved against this, the present revision has been filed.3. Heard the...
Tag this Judgment!Gadhi Vs. Krishnaraja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1590
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Petitioner/accused in O.S. 15/1994 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Koilpatti, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the dismissal of appeal in C.A. 11/97 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Tuticorin, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below.2. The case in brief for the disposal of the revision is as follows :-The petitioner/accused filed a rent control petition 23/87 against one Nagarajan and the same was dismissed for default on 3-12-87. The petitioner filed petition No. 167/87 on 15-12-87 and also filed an affidavit, wherein he had stated that on 3-12-87 he was in Bombay; however, the said Nagarajan was able to prove that the petitioner was in Koilpatti itself on 3-12-87 since he had signed in a Muchilika before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Koilpatti. The said Nagarajan gave a complaint before the learned Magistrate that the petitioner has committed the offences under Sections 199 and 200 of the Code of Cr...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Udani Vs. Corporation of Chennai Rep. by Its Assistant Engineer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC226
ORDER1. Petitioner/accused in S.T.C.No.1032 of 1998 on the file of learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai has-preferred the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the, proceedings.2. The case in brief is as follows:-The petitioner is the owner of property situated at Villivakkam village measuring about '1' acre and 66 cents bearing S. No. 172/2 and executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.Chirag N Mehar to deal with the property absolutely to apply to authorities for getting-planning permission and to develop the same by constructing residential apartments. She also executed a Development Agreement on 29.6.96 with Narendra Properties Limited agreeing for certain terms and conditions. The developer applied to the CMDA and Corporation for planning permission on 25.10.96. The CMDA requested the developer to pay the development charges and security deposit and the same was paid. The CMDA requested the developer to gift the OSR area to Corporation of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »