Chennai Court February 2001 Judgments
Mrs. Chandra and Ors. Vs. the Commissioner For Workmen's Compensation- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC488
ORDERP.M. Ibrahim Kalipulla, J.1. This writ petition and W.M.P. coming on for hearing on Monday, the Twelfth Day of February, 2001 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 6.9.1993 and made herein and the records relating to the order in No. B1/6478/93 and W.C. Case No. 199/93 dated 10.8.1993 on the file of the 1st respondent the comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S. Mohan Das, Advocate for the petitioners in both the petitions and of Mr. G. Vadivel, Govt. Advocate on behalf of the 1st respondent and of Mr. G. Veerapathran, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order:The sole question involved in this writ petition is as to the justification or apportionment made by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in respect of the compensation awarded to the various depend...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: [2001]249ITR676(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court, viz.,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the gross interest payment which has been incurred in the foreign branches is entitled to deduction under section 35B ?'2. The assessee-bank which has its registered office within the jurisdiction of this court, and has branches outside India including Ceylon and Singa-pore. It claimed the benefit of section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by way of weighted deduction for the expenditure incurred by it on its branches at Ceylon and Singapore for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1979-80. The Income-tax Officer had taken the view that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction on the expenditure incurred by the assessee. as he had considered that the difference of amount represented the gross interest paid by the assessee to its customers, who had made dep...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Abdul Jaffar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: [2001]250ITR736(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an assessment in the status of body of individuals was correct ?'2. The brief facts are that one Abdul Jaffar and Madasamy jointly purchased a lottery ticket of Rajasthan for the draw scheduled to be held on October 12, 1983. The ticket won a prize of Rs. 2 lakhs and also deducting commission of Rs. 20,000 and income-tax of Rs. 45,000, the balance was received through the Bank of Tamil Nadu, Tenkasi, and it was divided between them. Each of them filed a return of their own income showing the share of Rs. 90,000 each. But the Income-tax Officer made an assessment in the status of body of individuals on both of them for a total income of Rs. 1,80,000 as the income from lottery. But, however, on appeal, the order of the Income-tax Officer was set aside on the ground that these two persons are only co-owners of the prize money ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mercantile Credit Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR87(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance even though there is no activity of manufacturing or production of any article by the assessee ?' 2. A similar question came to be decided by this court in CIT v. S. Devaki : [2000]244ITR669(Mad) , wherein the question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 3. Applying the principles laid down in the abovesaid decision, we also answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Adyar Padmanabha Nagar Seva Sangham Vs. the Corporation of Chennai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad391
V.S. Sirpurkar1. This is an appeal filed by the Adyar Padmanabha Nagar Seva Sangham, represented by its Secretary, against the order of the learned single Judge by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.2. The petitioner's claim is that they were in possession of the public property in R.S. Nos. 57/1, 74 and 75 at Urur village, Division No. 100, T.S. No. 13 of Block No. 21, Sri Padmanabha Nagar, Second Stage, Adyar, Chennai- 20. It was the claim in the writ petition that the appellant association members were in possession of the property for over 30 years.3. The learned single Judge found that the association itself had been formed only in the year 1989. It was also found by the learned single Judge that the petitioner had not filed any documents to show that they were in possession and enjoyment of the property for over 30 years. The learned single Judge also took stock of the fact that the third respondent had filed a suit in O.S. No. 852/78 before the City C...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmapuri Town Sengodipuram Residents Welfare Association Vs. Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad307
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Petitioner is an Association, formed for the welfare of the residents of Sengodipuram village in Dharmapuri District. The said association was formed in June, 1998. The 3rd respondent Municipal Council passed a resolution dated 25-9-1998 seeking to evict the members of the petitioner association from the premises which they were occupying on the ground that the said occupation was illegal being encroachment.2. The claim of the petitioner association in the said writ petition was that the members of the association were residing on the said land for nearly forty years. The said land was a 'natham promboke land' and though they had given several representations to the Municipal Council seeking patta, the said patta was not given to any of the members. They claimed that a resolution came before the Municipal Council on 29-5-1998 wherein, a sanction was sought for Rs. 50,000/- as expenses for ousting the members of the petitioner association from this land, which was t...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kannan Vs. V. Mohana Sundaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-2001
Reported in: II(2002)ACC281
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The petitioners have filed the C.M.A. aggrieved by the quantum fixed by the V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in M.C.O.P. 646 of 1996 as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. At the time of filing M.C.O.P., the petitioner was a minor and was represented by his father. Now he has attained majority and the petition to declare him as major was ordered by this Court on 16.10.2000.2. This petition is now filed for permission to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,32,611/- which has been deposited by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has not challenged the award and out of the entire compensation amount that was deposited by the Insurance Company, a sum of Rs. 52,375/- (Rupees fifty two thousand three hundred and seventy five only) was withdrawn by the petitioner's father, who was representing him as his natural guardian. The balance of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited in Allahabad Bank, Mount Road, Chennai. Now, along with accrued interest a sum of Rs. 1,32,6...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Babu Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR206(Mad)
N. Dhinakar, J.1. The above petitions are filed by the second accused in C.Cs. Nos. 183 to 186 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metro politan Magistrate (Economic Offences) Egmore, Chennai, and the proceedings in the above calendar cases came to be initiated by way of a private complaint by the respondent against the petitioner and another for offences punishable under Sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Sections 120B, 177, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 511 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the petitioner and the other accused in the case cheated the Income-tax Department by opening accounts in ficititious names, with the banks, they did not disclose their income, etc.2. After the filing of the complaint, the petitioner and the other accused appeared before the court and received copies of the documents. Thereafter, they filed a petition to quash the proceedings before the court and the same was d...
Tag this Judgment!P. Dhamodharan Vs. Palani Andavar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: [2002]108CompCas873(Mad)
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The above two revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/third accused in S.T.C. Nos. 1396 and 894 of 1998 respectively on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Udumalpet, and he filed these revisions aggrieved against the orders passed in CM.P. Nos. 6230 and 5918 of 1998 respectively, dated October 14, 1998.2. The case in brief for disposal of both the revision petitions is as follows :The respondent filed two complaints under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act'), against three accused and the petitioner is the third accused. The first accused is the firm and the company issued a cheque dated January 30, 1998, of M/s. City Union Bank Limited, Tiruppur, for Rs. 1,57,984 in favour of the complainant in one case. Similarly in the other case also on March 15, 1998, a cheque for Rs. 2 lakhs was issued by the second accused in the capacity of the partner in the accused firm. When both the cheque...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayaraman and Etc. Vs. T.S. Ravi and ors. Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad422
ORDERI. David Christian, J. 1. All the three applications have been filed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chennai, who is the Garnishee in Appln. No. 1969 of 1999. These applications have been filed praying for a decision on the point raised by the petitioner as to whether he is liable to the second respondent/third defendant and consequently to the first respondent/plaintiff and to provide an opportunity to contest the application, pending disposal of the application, to stay payment out of the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs in credit of the suit made by the petitioner and also a direction to deposit the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs in fixed deposit so that it may accrue interest, pending disposal of the suit. 2. The Company Secretary of Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited has filed an affidavit in support of the applications raising the following contentions :-- Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Cor-poration Limited known as TIDCO has no privity of c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »