Chennai Court December 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.
Vasantha R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ843Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The crux of the contention in this batch of writ petitions is there shall be no discrimination on ground of sex, which is perhaps the most controversial of all protective measures, an ever raging controversy and the issue, has been now set in motion in the form of legal action. This Court deems it apt to quote the great jurist before taking up the writ petitions for consideration:'It is of the very nature of a free society to advance in its standards of what is deemed reasonable and right. Representing as it does a living principle, due process is not confined within a permanent catalogue of what may at a given time be deemed the limits or the essentials of fundamental rights.' JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, in Wolf v. Colorado [338 U.S. 25, 27(1949)].2. In the present batch of writ petitions the plea that has been advanced is essentially a claim of equality for women with passion and the equality means equality of opportunity for both men and women. It is the plea of the pe...
Kalakrithi Vs. Ito and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: [2002]253ITR754(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J. Counsel contends that the power of the Commissioner must be exercised either wholly in favour of the assessee, or wholly against him when a relief sought by the assessee under section 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is in respect of a penalty levied under section 272A, sub-section (2), clause (c) of the Act.Under section 272A of the Act, a person, who, inter alia, fails to furnish the returns or statements mentioned in that section will be liable to pay by way of penalty at a rate of, as that section stood in the year 1990, a sum of not less than Rs. 100 and not more than Rs. 200 for every day during which the failure continued.Admittedly, the petitioner, which is a partnership firm engaged in the production of films, was required to file the return under section 285B of the Act in Form No. 52A within 30 days from the date of completion of the production of the film, or 30 days from the end of the financial year in which the production was completed. The assessee...
G. Rangaraj Vs. the Commandant, Cisf Unit, Rsp - Rourkela Steel Plant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ258
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since identical relief is prayed for in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the orders of dismissal from service as well as confirmation order passed by the Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions for quashing those orders.2. For the convenience, the case of the petitioner in W.P.No. 9380 of 1995 is briefly stated here-under:According to the petitioner, he was enlisted at Madras as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force in 1985 by the Assistant Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF') Unit, RSP, Rourkela. He was issued with a charge memo containing nine charges by the Commandant (Admn.), Disciplinary Authority. The charge sheet was served on him on 4.7.1980 and he submitted his reply on 18.7.1990 denying the charges totally. An enquiry was conducted by the Inspector and on his submitting his report on 14.2.1991,...
Lemuir Air Express Iata Cargo Agent Vs. Air India, Government Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ783
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The above appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.2.1987 made in O.S. No. 4820 of 1984 by the II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The appellant is the second defendant in the suit and the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 96,546.33 with interest and costs against one Dewan International as the first defendant (which is not a party to the appeal) and the appellant as the second defendant.2. The suit has been filed on averments such as, that the plaintiff is a Government Corporation constituted under the Air Corporation Act, 1953; that the first defendant carries on business and it is a proprietory concern; that the second defendant is a IATA recognised Cargo agent; that the plaintiff in the course of its air carriers business with the first defendant entrusted two consignments to be air freighted from Madras to Rome; that the second defendant issued air way bills for both the consignments, the first ...
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.), Neighbourhood Scheme and anr. Vs. Pavaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ352
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. The Land Acquisition Officer/ respondent is the appellant herein.2. A.S.No. 54 of 1992 relates to the acquisition of an extent of 1.10.5 hectares of land in Survey No. 511/2 of Periasemur Village, Erode Taluk for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published in 15.7.1981. An award No. 2 of 1986 was made on 11.8.1986 fixing a compensation at the rate of Rs. 83,940 per hectare (Rs. 33,984 per acre). At this rate, on the acquired land along with trees and building, a total compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,82,510.15 was awarded. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded 30% solatium and interest of 12% on this amount. The learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the compensation and fixed the land value at Rs. 9,700 per acre (which is equivalent to Rs. 98,000 per hectare or Rs. 3,967 per cent). Aggrieved by this enhancement, the above appeal is preferred...
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Superintending Engineer, Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ636
ORDERP. Shanmugam, J.1. Both the above appeals arise out of an arbitration award and judgments seeking for a direction to file the original award and pass the decree in terms thereof (O.P.No. l of 1992) and an order to set aside the order of award dated 12.3.1992 (O.P.No. 2 of 1992) under Sections 17 and 14(2) and under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively. The Subordinate Judge directed the Arbitrator to file the original award and passed a decree in terms of the said award. He has also, in O.P.No. 2 of 1998, dismissed the application under Section 30 to set aside the award. The State of Tamil Nadu, aggrieved by the allowing of the application under Sections 17 and 14(2) of the Act and dismissing the application under Section 30 of the Act, filed the above two appeals.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The first respondent is a Contractor and a successful tenderer for undertaking the work of formation of Pugalur Byepass Road. A...
A. Geetha Vs. G. Sankaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ390
ORDERP. Thangavel, J.1. These civil revision petitions have been filed by the landlords/ landlady, against the common judgment and decree, dated 27.2.1998 and made in R.C.A.Nos. 10 to 13 of 1995 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Thiruvannamalai, confirming the common order and decretal order, dated 10.7.1995 and made M.P.No. 73 of 1987 in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987; R.C.O.P.Nos. 2 of 1994, 2 of 1987 and 2 of 1993 respectively, on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvannamalai.2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows: The premises described in each of the Rent Control Petitions viz., R.C.O.P.Nos. 2 of 1987, 2 of 1993 and 2 of 1994, is one and the same and it was originally owned by T.S. Ramu Mudaliar, the father of the petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987. The demised property was allotted to the share of petitioners 1 to 3, referred to above, along with ot...
The Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Neighbourhood Scheme Vs. Meenakshiammal ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ698
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The Land Acquisition Officer/respondent is the appellant herein.2. A.S. No. 57 of 1992 relates to the acquisition of an extent of 0.57.5 hectares of land in Survey No. 505/3 of Periasemur village, Erode Taluk for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published on 15.7.1981. An Award No. 2 of 1986 was made on 11.8.1986 fixing a compensation at the rate of Rs. 83,940 per hectare ( Rs. 33,984 per acre). At this rate, on the acquired land along with trees and building, a total compensation of a sum of Rs. 92,298.25 was awarded. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded 30% solatium and interest of 12% on this amount. The learned Subordinate Judge has enhanced the compensation and fixed the land value at Rs. 9,800 per acre (which is equivalent to Rs. 98,000 per hectare or Rs. 3,967 per cent). Aggrieved by this enhancement, the above appeal is preferred.3. Ac...
Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR86(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. Sundaram Finance Limited, is the assessee at whose instance three questions have been referred to this court.'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding, (i) that medical reimbursement, house rent allowance, personal accident insurance and club fees should be treated as part of salary for working out the disallowance under Section 40A(5) for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 ? (ii) that travelling allowance considered to be in excess of the limits under Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules is not liable as deduction for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 ? (iii) and upholding the disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 4,40,029 for the assessment year 1983-84 ?' 2. As far as the expenditure in the first question, viz., medical reimbursement and house rent allowance are concerned, they have got to be treated as part of salary and the assessee cannot have exemption under Section 40A(5) of...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.P. Balasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR127(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a music director and playback singer and according-to him, he is also occasionally involved in film production. It is his case that he had entered into a business venture with one Charan Chitra, a, partnership firm on February 28, 1977, under which he was to receive 5 per cent, of the amount realised from the film called 'Charitra Hennulu' after the amount borrowed by that firm from Vijaya Pictures in a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for which the assessee has stood guarantee, was repaid from the earnings of the movie. The fact that the assessee had stood surety for the monies lent by Vijaya Pictures to Charan Chitra had come to light after a search in the assessee's premises on June 28, 1980. At that search certain diaries were also recovered, on the basis of which additions were made to the assessee's income.2. The assessee in his returns for the assessment years with which we are concerned, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1981-82, claimed that no addition t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »