Chennai Court November 2000 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.
Combined Engineering Industries and Agencies (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR478(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian J.1. The above writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 64,540 being the amount deducted by W. S. Insulators of India Limited and paid to the Income-tax Department out of the amounts due and payable to the petitioner together with interest at 15 per cent, per annum thereon from the date of deduction till the date of refund. Though the main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to grant refund of the tax, the sum and substance of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, i.e., the fifth respondent.2. The Income-tax Officer, by his letter dated December 3, 1990, intimated the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner on December 18, 1989, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Central Board of Direct Taxes has been rejected by the Board for the ass...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR287(Mad)
1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that this is a case of mistake sought to be rectified under Section 13 whereas the Income-lax Officer has only treated it as giving effect to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order and applying Rule 2 ?'2. The real question to be decided is as to whether the order made by the Income-tax Officer, after the matter has been sent back by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner after he had accepted the assessee's complaint regarding disallowance of certain other items, was one which was within his jurisdiction as Income-tax Officer, as in his second order, the Income-tax Officer did not confine himself to matters which had been dealt with by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but proceeded further to revise his own earlier order regarding other items by holding that there was mistake apparent for the record which he...
Combined Engineering Industries and Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)131
ORDERN. V. Balasubramanian, J.The above writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund a sum of Rs, 64,540 being the amount deducted by M/s W.S. Insulators of India Ltd. and paid to the Income Tax Department out of the amounts due and payable to the petitioner together with interest at 15 per cent per annum thereon from the date of deduction till the date of refund. Though the main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to grant refund of the tax, the sum and substance of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, i.e., the fifth respondent.2. The Income Tax Officer, by his letter dated 3-12-1990, intimated the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioner on 18-12-1989, under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act before the Central Board of Direct Taxes has been rejected by the Board for the assessment year 1985-8...
Mohammed Ali Vs. Abdul Sinab
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Mad216; (2001)1MLJ371
ORDER1. Mohamed Ali, the appellant herein, is the defendant in the suit for recovery of money on promissory notes. 2. Abdul Sinab, the respondent herein, filed a suit against the appellant contending that he had advanced money by himself to the appellant and he had also got the promissory notes assigned from third parties and those assignors had also advanced money to the defendant/appellant. The trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant/appellant. 3. The case of the plaintiff is this:- 'The defendant obtained a loan of Rs.9,000 on 2.10.1988 and another loan of Rs.9,000 on 7.10.1988 and executed promissory notes in favour of one Abdul Rafi. On 11.9.1989, the said Abdul Rafi assigned the right of collecting the same on the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant obtained a loan of Rs.9,000 on 1.12.1988 and another Rs.9,000 on 25.12.1988 fr...
Kaliammal Vs. Karuppan and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ22
ORDER1. 1. Kaliammal, the plaintiff/appellant, having lost in both the Courts below, has approached this court by filing this second appeal.2. The appellant filed a suit against the defendants claiming for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs l/3rd share in the suit property and for mesne profits. The trial court, after trial, dismissed the suit holding that the necessary party has not been added and the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal before the lower appellate court, which, in turn, also dismissed the appeal, while confirming ihe judgment and decree of the trial court.3. The case of the plaintiff is this:-' The suit property belonged to plaintiffs father Philips, who died 10 years back leaving behind him, his son by name Kannan and two daughters Kaliammal (plaintiff) and Muruvayee as heirs to his property. After the death of their father, Ihe plaintiff, Muruvayee and Kannan were in possession and enjoyment of !he property....
Madura Coats Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: 2002(144)ELT533(Mad)
ORDERY. Venkatachalam, J.1. In all the three writ petitions, the writ petitioners and the respondents herein, are one and the same and the subject matter of the relief sought for by the petitioners in each petition are one and the same. Hence, a common order is delivered in the above writ petitions.2. In all these 3 writ petitions the petitioner by name M/s Madura Coats Limited represented by its Assistant Logistics Manager, Excise, Aladi-yur, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District has filed above writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for the relief sought for questioning the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, dated 15-11-92. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioners have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the three writ petitions.3. On the other hand, the respondents have filed counter-affidavit rebutting all the material alleg...
Sterling Horticulture and Research Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)168CTR(Mad)323; [2001]249ITR149(Mad); (2001)1MLJ46
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The fourth respondent herein, as owner of the property in question, viz., an extent of 6,180 sq. metres of vacant land and superstructure in an area of 4,406.92 thus in all 10,587 sq. metres, bearing door No. 5, Greenways Road., Adyar, Madras, now known as No. 4, Bishop Garden Extension, Raja Annamalaipuram, Madras-28, in the Sub-Registration District of Mylapore, Registration District of Madras-Chengalpattu, entered into an agreement on July 27, 1995, to sell the abovesaid property to the appellant herein for a total consideration of Rs. 19,75,00,000. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the appellant along with the fourth respondent submitted Form No. 37-1 on July 27, 1995, itself. As per the agreement, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 75,00,000 as advance. It was agreed between the parties that the purchaser, viz., the appellant herein, should pay the balance sale consideration within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the approval from th...
Special Officer, Kanniyakumari District Co-operative Printing Works Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR538]; (2001)ILLJ1078Mad; (2001)1MLJ459
ORDERF.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred against the order of the first respondent Appellate Authority constituted under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 holding that the petitioner did not prefer the appeal within the stipulated period, that the appeal preferred by the petitioner after one year and seven months cannot be entertained by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. According to the petitioner after receipt of the order dated August 28, 1992 of the Controlling Authority, on September 5, 1992 the petitioner filed the appeal on September 30, 1992 and that the same was returned on October 17, 1992 on the ground that the appeal was not properly filed in compliance with Section 7(7) of the Act. The petitioner claimed that the appeal which was returned on October 17, 1992 was re-submitted on October 24, 1992, that thereafter nothing was heard till January 27, 1993 when certain partic...
N.L.C. Workers Progressive Union and anr. Vs. Neyveli Lignite Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR505]; (2001)ILLJ1219Mad; (2001)1MLJ409
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether workmen who proceeded on strike are entitled to wages for the period of strike, namely June 16, 1992 and June 17, 1992.2. N.L.C. Workers Progressive Union and N.L.C. Employees Union of Neyveli have filed this writ petition seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the circular dated June 6, 1992 issued by the Director, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the second respondent herein and quash the same and further direct the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the first respondent herein to paywages and salary for the period of strike, namely June 16, 1992 and June 17, 1992.3. The case of the petitioners is this:'There are seven unions having workmen as the members working in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli. All the Unions including the petitioners' Unions for fulfilling some demands sent a strike noticedated May 29, 1992 intimating their intention to go...
Special Officer, Salem District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ1673Mad
F.M. Ibrahlm Kalifulla, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against award of the first respondent made in I.D. No. 269 of 1992 holding that the non- employment of the second respondent was not justified and therefore he should be reinstated with all back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.2. According to the petitioner, when the second respondent was employed as salesman in one of the fair price shops run by the petitioner, on April 20, 1987, 1000 kilograms of rice and on April 26, 1987, 2000 kilograms of rice were received by the second respondent for the purpose of distribution to cardholders, that as per the list furnished by the second respondent, he distributed 12 kilograms of rice to each of 82 cardholders on February 24, 1987 and to one cardholder on April 22, 1987, in all 996 kilograms of rice, that when the Inspector Sri Palanichamy, attached to the office of the petitioner made enquiries with 48 cardholders, he was informed that they did not receive an...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »