Chennai Court June 2001 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.
Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited Fertilizer Division, Chennai Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ843
ORDER1. Having regard to the magnitude of the consequence that may arise in respect of such appeals that may be preferred before the District Court challenging the orders of the tax revisions made by the Taxation Appeal Committees of different municipalities, I am of the view that disposal of this Civil Revision petition would provide a solution to such problems that may arise in similar appeals preferred before the District Courts.2. Viewed in that respect, on a perusal of the relevant materials filed in this Civil Revision and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Municipality, I find that though under the T.N.District Municipalities Act, there is a specific provision under Section 26(A)(a) providing the manner in which the difference in the revised lax should be deposited in the event of an appeal being preferred before the Taxation appeal committee, no such provision has been provided for in the Act while an aggrieved party prefer any appeal before the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
Reported in: (2002)172CTR(Mad)255; [2001]252ITR129(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. In Section 32(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to April 1, 1984, it had been provided that the initial depre-ciation granted to hotel buildings under that clause shall not be deducted in determining the written down value for the purposes of Clause (ii). That Clause (ii) provided for depreciation at the prescribed percentage of the written down value of the assets on which depreciation was allowable. By the Finance Act 11 of 1983, with effect from April 1, 1984, the words 'but any such sum shall not be deductible in determining the written down value for the purposes of Clause (ii)' which words were part of Section 32(1)(v) of the Act, were deleted. 2. In the assessment of the assessee, which owns and runs a hotel, for the assessment year 1984-85, the Assessing Officer, for the purpose of determining the written down value of the building for that year, deducted the initial depreciation that had been granted in earlier years even though the ...
Manimekalai Ammal and 5 Others Vs. Swamidorai Padayatchi and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ826
ORDERP. Shanmugham, J. 1. To resolve the conflict of views on the interpretation of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (Act 40 of 1979), this Full Bench has been constituted.2. Several enactments have been made to provide relief to the indebted agriculturists and persons right from Act 4 of 1938, the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Relief Act. We are presently concerned with the debt relief legislations namely Ordinance 1 of 1975 replaced by the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 10 of 1975, the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act 15 of 1976 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act of 1977, the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Second Amendment) Act of 1977, The Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Laws (Amendment) Act of 1978 and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979. A moratorium has been imposed by the provisions of these Acts against institutions of suits during the subsistence of these Acts for a total period of 4 years, 4 mon...
Rabiyathil Pathavia Vs. the State Government of T.N. Rep by Its Secy P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(80)ECC91
ORDERK. Narayana Kurup, J. 1. The order of preventive detention was clamped on the husband of the petitioner under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) by the first respondent in G.O. No. SR. I/981-4/2000, dated 17.8.2000 for misdeclaration of Imported goods, which according to the detenu is Rs.4,90,000, whereas according to ihe Revenue Department it is Rs.17,41, 800, is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition on the ground that after passing of the detention order, additional, documents were served on thedetenu on 6.9.2000 and 13.9.2000 without any covering letter and without any translation of these document's, thereby, vitiating the order of detention.2. It is not in dispute that the following documents were supplied to the detenu without Tamil translation and without mentioning the purpose for which it is supplied:(i) Petition filed by the DRI Department under Section 110(i)(a) or 11...
Arokiaswamy Odayar (Decd.) and Six Others Vs. Ry. Nagoji Ramachandra G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ183
ORDER1. The unsuccessful defendant before the courts below has filed this Second Appeal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 3 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur redemption of the mortgage in respect of the suit properties and for possession. According to the plaintiff an usufructuarymortgage deed was executed on 7.7.1968 marked as Ex.Al. On the basis of the said mortgage deed, possession was handed over to the defendant, and since the period mentioned in the said document was over, the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgage and for possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff also claimed benefits under the Debt Relief Act, to say that the mortgage deed has already been discharged.3. The defendant contested the suit contending inter alia that the plaintiff is not entitled to any benefit under the Debt Relief Act as the defendant is in occupation of the suit properties as a tenant pursuant to Ex.E3 dated 22.6.1954. It is the case of the defendant...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S.S. Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: [2001]252ITR126(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee transferred a flat which was in his name to that of his wife. There was no consideration for such transfer. The rental income from the flat was taxed in the hands of the assessee. Despite the transfer, the rental income realised from the flat was treated as the income of the assessee by reason of Section 64(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The wife being prudent, instead of spending the rental income, chose to save the same and the savings so effected were put in a fixed deposit in her name. The interest accruing to her from those deposits was regarded by the Income-tax Officer as the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1979-80. The correctness of that view was questioned by the assessee in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the assessee. The Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal against that order in appeal having proved unsuccessful, the correctness of the Tribunal's view is being contested by the Revenue in this...
Manickam Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: 2002(140)ELT16(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The above writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in C. No. VIII/46/23/2000-Cus., dated 6-6-2001 and to quash the same as illegal arbitrary and without authority of law and further direct the respondents to permit clearance of the imported materials covered under Bill of Entry No. 05716, dated 1-6-2001 (Advance Noting Register Serial No. 155, dated 30-5-2001) on receipting the assessed Customs duty.2. The case of the petitioner 19 that the petitioner entered into various contracts with the foreign seller at Malaysia for the supply of RBD Palmolein in bulk. Shipments were made periodically and the price was fixed per metric tonne based on the price agreed to in the terms of the contract. Some of the consignments were shipped during March and April, 2001 and the Bill of Entries were filed before the authorities. The authorities verified the value ...
Cit Vs. Official Liquidator, Pilot Pen Co. (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR533(Mad)
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.At the instance of the revenue, the following questions are referred for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, respectively :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding, that the expenditure of Rs.52,945 for the assessment year 1986-87 incurred as security charges in respect of the land and factory building should be treated as loss from a separate sub-source of income and eligible for set off against other incomes, irrespective of the fact, that there is no income from this sub-source during the relevant previous year ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 68,422 for the assessment year 1987-88 incurred as security charges, in respect of the land and factory building, should be treated as loss from a separate sub-source of income and eligible for set off against other incom...
Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-2001
Reported in: II(2001)ACC783
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. the appeal is filed by the Transport Corporation which is, aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ponneri fixing the liability to pay compensation on the appellant-Corporation.2. The facts of the matter are on 15.6.1998, Gunasekaran the first respondent's husband and the father of respondents 2 and 3 was travelling on the back seat of a cycle when the bus belonging to the appellant dashed against him resulting in the death of the said Gunasekaran. A claim for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made for compensation. The case of the respondents was that the bus was driven at a high speed rashly and negligently by the appellant's bus driver.3. This was resisted by the appellant-Corporation. In particular, the Corporation denied the issue of negligence. According to the counter filed in the Court below the two persons who were on the cycle including the deceased were seen by the bus driver who brought the vehicle to a halt since the cycle was m...
R. Padmavathi Vs. the Land Commissioner, (Land Records) Chepauk, Chenn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ1
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The present writ petition is against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Special Appellate Tribunal, whereby the Special Appellate Tribunal disposed of Special Revision Petition No.108 of 1992 and D. No. 825 of 1993. For appreciating the controversy involved the factual panorama will have to be understood.2. One Muthu Reddiar was the rightful land holder. He held extensive lands. He is no more. It is an admitted position that R. Padmavathi, the petitioner before us, is his legal representative. Proceedings began under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act and an order came to be passed on 1.12.1973 in respect of the land holding of the said Muthu Reddiar. This proceeding was held under Section 22 of the Act and the authority examined the Return filed by the said Muthu Reddiar in Form 2 on 27.12.1972. During the enquiry, it was found that the said Muthu Reddiar had made two gift settlements in favour of his minor grandsons and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »