Chennai Court March 2000 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. State Industries Promotion Corporation ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: [2000]245ITR480(Mad)
N.K. Jain, J. 1. The above tax case is at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-II, Madras, under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1984-85, for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the fees paid by the assessee to the Registrar of Companies in connection with the increase of authorised capital of the company should be allowed as a revenue expenditure ?'2. Learned standing counsel for the Department submits that this court held that the expenditure was considered to be revenue expenditure as per the decision reported in CIT v. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. : [1981]130ITR385(Mad) . But the same has been reversed and held that this expenditure is to be taken as capital expenditure and is not liable for deduction, by the Sup...
Tag this Judgment!General Secretary, All India Tourism Development Corporation Employees ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ834Mad
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. The All India Tourism Development Corporation Employees' Union has filed this writ petition against the Management and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court praying to pass a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the Labour Court relating to the award dated September 24, 1990 passed in I.D. No. 662 of 1984 and quash the same. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner Union would submit that it is a union registered under Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926; that the duty free shop at Madras is one of the six at all India level and the same was started in 1969 that the shop is functioning as a profitable organisation; that the employees of the shop numbering 81, were paid 20 per cent bonus for several years. But for the year 1982-1983, the respondents 1 and 2 declared 8.33 per cent bonus only whereas in other duty free shops, it was 20 per cent bonus declared; that on failure of conciliation the Government on reference...
Tag this Judgment!Super Chemicals Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-2000
Reported in: 2000(121)ELT298(Mad)
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J.1. Though all the above three writ petitions have been filed by different concerns, the first respondent in all the above writ petitions being the Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and the second respondent in W.P. No. 10747 of 1990 is the Superintendent of Central Excise, Sivakasi, the second respondent in W.P. No. 13580 of 1993 is the Superintendent of Central Excise, Sathoor Range, Sathoor and the second respondent in W.P. No. 13581 of 1993 is the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise, Sathoor Range II, Sathoor and further the legal question and the relief sought for in all the three writ petitions being one and the same they are jointly heard and a common order is passed.2. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners would pray for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to apply the Notification No. 175/66, dated 1-3-1986 without reference to the amending Notification No. 142/89...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Cegat, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-2000
Reported in: 2002(139)ELT22(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. We have heard the Counsel for the Revenue. We have also perused the order of the Tribunal.2. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that Modvat credit for inputs cannot be taken by a manufacturer, unless the person who sold the inputs to the manufacturer of the final product had paid the duty and such payment was noted in the gate pass before the inputs were delivered to the manufacturer of the final product. The Tribunal has found that the manufacturer, assessee in this case, has received the inputs, but at the time of the receipt of the inputs, the amount of the duty paid by the manufacturer of the inputs had not been stated in the documents. The Tribunal has held that notwithstanding that fact it would still be open to the assessee to take the Modvat credit on the inputs, if it is able to show by credible evidence that the inputs so received by it had suffered the excise duty.3. The scheme of Rule 57A considered alongwith the provisions of Rules 57E...
Tag this Judgment!A. Subramania Mudaliar Vs. V.G. Subramania Battar and 5 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC334; (2000)IIMLJ702
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S.No. 12 of 1995, on the file of District Magistrate-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, is the revision petitioner.2. The suit was originally filed on the file of District Munsif's Court, Kovilpatti as O.S. No.10 of 1991 and subsequently, on the formation of new courts, it was transferred to Vilathikulam Munsif's Court and renumbered as O.S.NO. 12 of 1995. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the property and to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession.3. It is admitted that there was an earlier suit filed by defendant as O.S. No.258 of 1985, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Kovilpatti, and a decreewas passed in favour of petitioner herein. The matter was taken in second appeal before this Court in Second Appeal No.1693 of 1995, and the same is pending. In view of pendency of the second appeal, all proceedings have been stayed under Section 10, C.P.C. The reason for filing this revision is, ...
Tag this Judgment!Seethai Ammal and 5 Others Vs. V.C. Vikundam and 5 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC461
ORDER1. Legal heirs of defendant in Q.S.No.22 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Vilathikulam are the revision petitioners herein.2. Suit filed by plaintiffs was one for recovery of possession with arrears of rent. In the plaint it is alleged that originally defendant was tenant who agreed to pay Rs.625 per month as rent and defendant defaulted in paying the same and he is liable to be evicted. Notice was issued terminating tenancy.3. In the written statement filed by deceased defendant he admitted that he has taken only vacant site and put up construction 35 years prior to the institution of the suit, but he agreed that he is liable to pay Rs.625 as monthlyrent. He also questioned the validity of the notice. He prayed for dismissal ofthe suit.4. Case was posted in the list and since defendant did not appear, ex parte decree was passed.5. Defendant himself filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and pending application he died. Petitioners are impleaded as addi...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjeevi Ammal and 3 Others Vs. Narasimha Naicker and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)CTC389
ORDER1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.360 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Sholinghur are the revision petitioners. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the adverse order in I.A. No.399 of 1997 filed by them an application to amend the plaint. 3. Suit filed by them was to declare their title to scheduled property and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering with their, possession. 4. In the written statement filed by defendants they denied the right of plaintiffs to any of the reliefs in the plaint. 5. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.783 of 1990 for an order of injunction. It was dismissed by the Court. Though plaintiffs preferred C.M.A.No.75 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore, the same did not succeed. Therefore, they moved an application before lower court to amend the plaint seeking recovery of property on the basis of title. 6. Detailed counter statement was filed by respondent and accepting thecounter, lower court dismissed the appli...
Tag this Judgment!Appaji Reddy Vs. Uco Bank, Villianur Represented by Its Manager and Tw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: [2001]106CompCas225(Mad); 2000(4)CTC270
ORDER1. In both the revision petitions, defendant is the revision petitioner. 2. C.R.P.No.1064 of 1997 arises from O.S.No.1494 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Villupuram. In that case, decree itself was passed on 22.6.1985 against petitioner and that has become final. Alleging that there is mistake in drafting decree, an application was filed in LA.No.909 of 1996 by plaintiff, which was allowed by lower Court. 3. Plaintiff in that case is United Commercial Bank, now a Government of India Undertaking. Suit was filed for recovery of Rs.8,247.65 with future interest. It is seen that defendant has hypothecated certain machineries as security for the amount borrowed and when judgment was pronounced, defendant was directed to pay the amount within specified time and in case he fails to do so, Judgment further provided that the mortgaged property could be sold in auction. In case decree amount could not be satisfied in spite of sale of mortgaged properties, para 5 of the Judgmen...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. Ramaiah thevar Vs. P.C. Balarama Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC201
ORDER1. Defendant in O.S.No.214 of 1993 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenkasi is the revision petitioner. 2. Suit filed by plaintiff was one for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement for sale, alleged to have been executed by defendant. Defendant denied execution of agreement for sale. To prove that thumb impression in agreement for sale is not of defendant, an application was filed by defendant to send the same to get expert opinion, in I.A.No.718 of 1996. Some of the admitted signatures along with disputed thumb impression were also sent for getting expert opinion to Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. On 15.4.1998, all the papers were returned to Court with covering letter which reads thus, 'FromThe Director and Chemical Examiner to Government, Forensic Sciences Department, Forensic House), Kamarajar Salai, Madras-600 004. ToThe Principal Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. Reference 1. Your letter D.No.1862...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Rahaman Vs. Basheer Alam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)CTC291
ORDER1. This petition has been filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 read with 151, C.P.C. during the pendency of the revision praying to direct the tenants/respondents to pay the arrears of rent to the landlord, failing which further proceedings may be stopped and the respondents be directed to put the landlord in possession of the building.2. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr.Raghavachari has taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition under Section 11(4) of the Act at the revisional stage. Reliance was placed on the judgment reported in Radha v. R.Govindarajulu, 1978 (91) L.W. 443. In that case the Division Bench held that when a revision under Section 25 of the Act was pending before the High Court, an application under Section 11(4) of the Act directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession on the ground that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent was not maintainable. Therefore, according to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »