Chennai Court November 2000 Judgments
V. Arunshanker, Represented by Father and Power Agent, Mr. S. Venkatra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ215
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of declaration declaring the demolition notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 12.6.2000 under Section 56(2) and 113(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 read with Tamil Nadu Ordinance 5 of 2000, dated 23.8.2000 is ultra vires to Articles 213, 243W, 243ZE, 243ZF read with XII Schedule of the Constitution of India amended by Constitution 74th amendment and violative of Article 14 and liable to be quashed for excessive delegation and illegal, defunct and inconsistent with Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 read with Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2000.2. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned notice to demolish the building in question has been issued under Section 56(2) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act 1971...
Tag this Judgment!A.C. Lakshmipathy and Another Vs. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and Five Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Mad135; (2001)1MLJ1:2009AIRSCW7144:2009(6)LHSC3858
ORDERMr. A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. O.S.A.No.237 of 2000 has been filed by the plaintiff in the suit C.S.No.545 of 1985 against the order passed by a learned single Judge, holding that the unregistered document dated 29.12.1974 styled as 'Memorandum of partial partition' can be admitted in evidence and looked into for collateral purposes. O.S.No.274 of 2000 has been filed by the 2nd defendant in the suit against the same order of the learned single Judge, claiming that the document in question is a mere record of family arrangement and the same does not require registration and is admissible in evidence and can be looked into for all purposes.2. For the purpose of convenience, we adopt the cause title as given in O.S.A.No.237 of 2000. The appellant as plaintiff, originally instituted the suit as plaintiff as against the father by name Chakrapani Reddiar, since dead, as 1st defendant and his brother by name Kulasekaran as 2nd defendant. Pending suit, the 1st defendant died and the d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Krishna Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR498(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us is as to whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the share income arising to the minor sons of the assessee by the admission to the benefits of partnership in a firm cannot be included in the hands of the assessee as their parent under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Act for the concerned assessment years, where the assessee has no other source of income of his own chargeable under the provisions of the Act.2. A question similar to the one under consideration was considered by this court in the case of CIT v. P. Alwarsamy [1995] 211 ITR 353 and it was held by the Tribunal that clubbing is required to be done under Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Following the said judgment, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Parties to bear their respective costs....
Tag this Judgment!Nepc Agro Food Ltd. and anr. Vs. Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: [2002]111CompCas169(Mad)
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The respondent in the above appeals filed two company petitions, viz., C. P. No. 17 of 1997 against NEPC Micon Limited, Chennai, the appellant in O. S. A. No. 70 of 2000 and C P. No. 18 of 1997, against NEPC Agro Foods Limited, Chennai.2. Pending the company petitions, a learned single judge of this court, passed a common interim order, appointing a commissioner (a chartered accountant) to verify the extent of amount payable by the appellants herein to the respondent.3. The respondent in Company Petition No. 18 of 1997 has filed the appeal, viz., O. S. A. No. 69 of 2000. Similarly, the respondent in Company Petition No. 17 of 1997, has filed the appeal in O. S. A. No. 70 of 2000. Inasmuch as a common interim order passed by a learned single judge of this court, these two appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.4. It is unnecessary to set out every detail with regard to the case of the respective parties in both the appeals in view of the fact tha...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Oriental Hotels Ltd. Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ14Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellant before us who is anemployer filed an application before the E. S. I. Court for a declaration that the HRA andconveyance allowance are not 'wages' within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and that the claim made for contribution in respect of house rent assistance and conveyance allowance from July 1981 is illegal. The appellant is the owner of the Taj Coromandel Hotel which commenced its operation with effect from April 1, 1974. By a notification dated December 22, 1976, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the application of the Employees' State Insurance Act was extended to wages and the contributions cannot be claimed in respect of those two items.2. The appellants application was allowed by the E.I. Court. The order of the Court having been challenged by the Corporation, the appeal of the Corporation has been allowed by a learned single Judge. The appellant being aggrieved is now before us, in this appe...
Tag this Judgment!Chandira and anr. Vs. Arulmigu Poigaikarai Mariamman Temple and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ528
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The question arises for consideration is identical in both the writ petitions. Both the petitioners are claiming that they are the hereditary poojaris of Arulmigu Mariamman temple situate at Avoor Village, Valangaiman Taluk, Thiruvarur District. The petitioners by virtue of the office of hereditary poojaris are looking after the lands belonging to the first respondent temple. They applied for the assignment of an extent of 0.02.0 Hectares of land on the ground that as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu Act (Act 40 of 1971) they are entitled for such assignment in respect of their residence. The Special Tahsildar (Revenue Court), Tanjore, the third respondent herein granted the assignment. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent temple preferred an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Thiruvarur, the second respondent herein. The second respondent allowed the appeal and set aside the order of assignment passed by the third r...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Orient Litho Press Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT306(Mad); (2001)1MLJ131
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two writ appeals they being W.A. Nos. 229 and 291 of 1994. W.A. No. 229 of 1994 is by the Collector of Customs, Madras and two others, while, W.A. No. 291 of 1994 is at the instance of the original writ-petitioner. We would, therefore, refer to the parties by their status in the writ petition.2. Petitioner had challenged the orders dated 23-12-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs as also the other order dated 9-1-1986, passed by the Collector of Customs. By these orders, the authorities had held that the petitioner was not entitled for the registration of the project contract in respect of Graphic Art Films. Some facts would be necessary to understand the real nature of controversy.3. Petitioner sought for the registration of the project contracts in respect of import of as many as five items. They being:(i) Rolland four colour offset printing machine,(ii) Pre-press register system for the above,(iii) High speed letter pr...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnikant Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2000
Reported in: 2001(129)ELT584(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee's grievance is with regard to the quantum [of] redemption fine which has been determined by the Tribunal at 150% of the invoice value. The assessee complains that no basis has been set out in the order for determining the quantum of fine at that level. The Collector who had imposed the redemption fine of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- with respect to goods - almond in shells - of the value of Rs. 49.89 lakhs as per the invoice at the time of import in January, 1986, had relied upon the purchase code by the officials in one of the stores at Delhi in the month of May, 1986 of shelled almonds which had been purchased at the rate of Rs. 200/- per hundred grams.2. The amount so fixed by the Commissioner was reduced by the Tribunal on the ground that in its view that sum was excessive. Among the factors noted by the Tribunal was the fact that at the time of import there was ambiguity as to whether the importation of dry fruits by export houses claiming the benefit of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Overseas Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR496(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. We are very surprised at the conduct of the Revenue in seeking a reference, in a matter which admits of no doubt at all.2. The assessment of the assessee, a public sector bank, for the assessment year 1970-71 was completed on February 28, 1973, and it was revised twice on December 31, 1973, and October 10, 1977. The matter was once again sought to be reopened on the allegation that the assessee had to furnish relevant particulars with regard to the interest on securities, which according to the Revenue audit was taxable on accrual basis and not on the basis of realisation, and that the provisions for foreign exchange entitlement certificate should not have been treated as a liability and it should have been treated as provisional liability. The assessee-bank having appealed to the Commissioner against the order, the order of reassessment was set aside by the Commissioner who recorded a finding that the income offered from the interest on securities for income-ta...
Tag this Judgment!South India Shipping Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR624(Mad)
R. Jayasimha babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us, one at the instance of the assesses, and the other at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year is 1981-82. The assessee is engaged in the business of shipping. It employs persons on the ships owned by it and which sail mainly outside the territorial waters of India. It also employs shore staff, who occasionally make trips outside India for relatively short periods of time.2. The Tribunal having held in the appeal preferred by the assessee that the disallowance under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules would take into account all the expenses incurred by the assessee during the entire period of absence of its employees from headquarters, the correctness of that decision has been called into question in the reference made at the instance of the assessee. That question can be immediately disposed of, as another Bench of this court in the case of R. K. Swamy Advertising Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1996]220ITR507(Mad) ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »