Chennai Court March 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Beardsell Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-2000
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Mad)467; [2000]244ITR256(Mad)
P. Thangavel J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, in I. T. A. No. 2225/Mds. of 1991, in connection with the assessment year 1989-90.2. Beardsell Limited, Chennai, the respondent in this reference, is a public limited company. The said company filed its return of income with the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range-1, Chennai, showing a total income of Rs. 53,49,950, computing as per the provisions of Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the said return, a sum of Rs. 46,64,750 was shown as 'provision for doubtful debts' and the same was claimed to be exempted from including in the taxable profit. The Deputy Commissioner referred to above disallowed the provision created by the assessee for bad and doubtful debt of Rs. 46,64,750 on the ground that the provision made is not for ascertained liabilities as mentioned in Section 115J(1)(c) of the Act and, accordingly, inc...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cegat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2000
Reported in: 2001(75)ECC262; 2000(122)ELT37(Mad)
ORDER1. We have heard counsel for the Revenue, and also perused the order of the Tribunal. Notification No. 16/94 has also been placed before us. That notification, inter alia states that it would be applicable, provided, the documents have been issued before 1st April, 1994 and the credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules has been taken on or before 30th June, 1994.2. The Tribunal has held that failure to make the entry before 30th June regarding the credit would not disentitle the assessee from receiving the benefit of the notification. We are satisfied that the question of law raised by the Revenue does require our consideration.3. The Tribunal is directed to refer the following question of law :'Whether the Tribunal, in the circumstances, was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification 16/94, despite credit having been taken after 30th June, 1994, the last date specified in that Notification.'Statement of the case together with the materia...
K. Radhakrishnan Vs. the Additional Registrar (Marketing, Planning and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC147; (2000)IIMLJ7
ORDER1. The short question to be decided in this writ petition is whether first respondent-Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies is correct in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against the rejection of the order of the 2nd respondent on the ground that it is not maintainable under section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act since the said order is not an order under the Act/ Rules or Bye-laws of the second respondent Union.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are stated hereunder:-The petitioner joined the service of the second respondent on 20.11.1974 as a Care-taker. On 12.6.1978, the second respondent appointed him as a clerk on the basis of a letter of the Registrar dated 5.6.78 in the time scale of pay. While in employment, he underwent Co-operative Supervisor training course in 1978-79 and the results were announced in February, 1980. Though he passed in February, 1980, he was appointed as Junior Assistant (Clerical cad...
Syndicate Bank Vs. Indian Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad363
S. Thangaraj, J. 1. The unsuccessful second defendant/appellant in A.S. No. 73 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai has filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decreed passed by the said Court.2. The first respondent/plaintiff field a suit against the defendants 1 to 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,790/- with future interest at 18 per cent per annum on the sum of Rs. 4,000/-. The 3rd defendant remained ex parte. The trial Court passed a judgment and decree as prayed for with costs against2nd and 3rd defendants and dismissed the suit against the first defendant. The second defendant filed A.S. No. 73 of 1985 and the first defendant filed a Cross Appeal. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the second defendant and allowed the cross appeal filed by the first defendant. The second defendant has filed the second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. 3. The substantial questions of law framed in the Second...
Management of Chem Crown (India) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, I Addl. L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-2000
Reported in: [2001(89)FLR672]; (2000)IILLJ410Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. In these writs since the parties to the litigation and also the subject-matter involved are one and the same, both the matters were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petitions seeking for a writ of ceritorari to call for the records connected with the award of the first respondent, dated January 20, 1992, made in I.D. No. 44 of 1988 and to quash the same in W.P. No. 18780 of 1982 and to call for the records connected with the order of the first respondent, dated January 20, 1992, made in C.P. No. 1077 of 1986 and to quash the same in W.P. No. 18781 of 1992.3. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the wr...
P. Maheswari Vs. the Secretary to the Government Prohibition and Excis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC661
ORDERJudgment Pronounced by R. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The petitioner's son is detained as a 'goonda' under Act 14 of 1982. The first point urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the last out of the five adverse cases is stated to have been registered on 28.2.1999 and the ground case is stated to have been registered on 14.3.1999. The crime number for the earlier case is 362 of 1999 and the crime number for the later case is 458 of 1999. It is shown that 96 crime numbers are found to have been registered for the period from the date of registration of the last adverse case and the ground case. But the serial number of the first information report for the last adverse case is 683561 whereas the serial number of the first information report for the ground case is shown to be 683575. That/means, hardly 14 first information report formats have been used. This cannot be accepted as correct, in view of 96 crime numbers having come to be registered between the last a...
Ramesh S. Vs. Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd., Manali Express Highway a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-2000
Reported in: (2001)ILLJ1666Mad
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as an attender in the office of the respondent-company at Madras, where the respondent-company has its head office, on May 1, 1987. He was promoted as senior attender, and on such promotion, was transferred to the Kanpur branch office of therespondent-company with effect from January 7, 1995. He joined the Kanpur office on November 14, 1995. While he was working there, he was served with a show-cause notice, dated March 15, 1996, which show-cause notice was issued by the Chief Manger (HRD) of the company from Madras. The allegation against him was that he had made a false claim for Rs. 1855 which sum was the sum he claimed to have paid as school fees for his son S. Raunak, who was a student in the U.K.G. 'A' Section of the D.A.V. School at Madras.2. After holding an enquiry that was held on that charge the petitioner was served with an order of termination issued by the same Chief Manager, (HRD) from the Madras office. That order of term...
P. Srinivasamurthy Vs. P. Leelavathy and Six Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: AIR2000Mad516
ORDERJudgement pronounced by T. Meenakumari, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the orders of the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.799 of 1996 and Application No.2458 of 1998. The appellant is the plaintiff in C.S.No.799 of 1996. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the preferential right to purchase and acquire the interest of the defendants 1 to 6 and also for declaration that the sale deed dated 29.1.1996 executed by the defendants 1 to 6 in favour of the seventh defendant is not valid and not binding upon the plaintiffs and also for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of the shares of defendants 1 to 7 in the suit property. 2. The main allegations in the plaint are the suit property consisting of ground and premises bearing door No. 20, Ravanier Street Park Town Chennai, originally belonged to one Subramania Achari. The said S...
P. Srinivasamurthy Vs. P. Leelavathy and 6 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC159; (2000)IIMLJ275
ORDERJudgment Pronounced by T. Meena Kumari, J.1.These appeals have been filed against the orders of the learned single Judge in C.S.No.799 of 1996 and Application No.2458 of 1998. The appellant is the plaintiff in C. S.No. 799 of 1996. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the preferential right to purchase and acquire the interest of the defendants 1 to 6 and also for declaration that the sale deed dated 29.1.1996 executed by the defendants 1 to 6 in favour of the seventh defendant is not valid and not binding upon the plaintiff, and also for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession of the shares of defendants 1 to 7 in the suit property.2. The main allegations in the plaint are; the suit property consisting of ground and premises bearing door No.20, Ravanier Street, Park Town Chennai, originally belonged to one Subramania Achari. The said ...
T.V. Ekambaram and Two Others Vs. the Co-operative Tribunal Cum Distri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2000
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC659
ORDER1. The writ petition is for the issue of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings in C.M.A.(CS) 86 of 1990 dated 3.6.1992 confirming the order of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No. 12905/87 sa.pa. dated 2.51990 and quash the same. 2. The petitioners were the Directors of the third respondent Society. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that an employee by name Parameswaran was working from 1977 onwards on a consolidated pay in the third respondent Society. He is a post graduate and had undergone Co-operative Training and he was in-charge of all the affairs of the Society. He made a request for revision of pay. The Committee has passed a resolution on 25.10.1986 refixing the salary at Rs.650 per month with 15% D.A. and 15% H.R.A. with retrospective effect from the period 1984-86. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was no dispute with regard to the payment of salary for the period from 1986-89....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »