Chennai Court September 2001 Judgments
P.N. Chockalingam Pillai Vs. A. Natarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ661
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 11.6.1996 allowing the Writ Petition No. 16164 of 1988.2. The third respondent in the said writ petition is the appellant. For the convenience, we shall refer the parties as described in W.P.No. 16164 of 1988.3. The first respondent herein- writ petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 1656, Revenue Department, dated 17.12.1985, filed W.P.No. 16164 of 1988 on various grounds. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:He purchased the property bearing T.S.No. 4/1, Virahanur Village in 1970. At the time of purchase, one Chockalingam Pillai- third respondent therein and appellant in the present appeal was a tenant in the property. The said Chockalingam Pillai was carrying on rice mill business. He caused a legal notice for eviction from the premises. The petitioner also filed suit in O.S.No. 30 of 1981 before the District Munsif Court, Madurai. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallika Dharmaraj Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ596
ORDERP.K.Misra, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to return the document which had been submitted for registration. It appears that the sale deed was executed on 19.4.1989 and was registered as Registration No. 1784 of 1989. However since the registered document was not returned to the petitioner, for a pretty long period of about more than five years, the petitioner was forced to file the present writ petition seeking for the aforesaid relief.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has been indicated that the registering authority was of the opinion that there has been under valuation and a reference had been made on 6.5.1997. It is obvious that such reference was made only after the writ petition had been filed possibly with a view to avoid any adverse order in the writ petition. Be that as it may, even assuming that such reference had been made, such reference has to be taken a...
Tag this Judgment!N. Kasinathan Vs. M. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ766
ORDERV. Kanakaraj, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 13.10.2000 made in I.A.No. 5 of 2000 in A.S.No. 62 of 1998 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur, thereby dismissing an application filed by the plaintiff in the suit under Order 41, Rule 21 and Section 151, C.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 8.10.1998 passed ex parte against the petitioner and the subsequent order dated 16.12.1998 thereby admitting the above appeal in A.S.No. 62 of 1998.2. Today, on a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned Counsel for both, it comes to be known that the application had been filed under Order 41, Rule 21 and Section 151, C.P.C. praying for the relief extracted supra on grounds that the suit filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction had been decided in his favour and the respondent herein had preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 190 of 1998 which got transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge, and...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amalgamations Repco Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR127(Mad)
R. Jayasima Babu, J. 1. The Revenue relied on the law laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. : [1978]112ITR215(Bom) . We are in entire agreement with the law laid down therein that if the assessee obtains deduction for a higher sum towards depreciation, but shows a lesser sum as the amount of depreciation in the profit and loss account and thereafter credits the difference between the two figures of depreciation to a general reserve, such a general reserve will have to be reduced by the amounts so credited while computing the capital base of the company for the purpose of determining the chargeable profits. 2. Rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, reads thus : 'Rule 1. Subject to the other provisions contained in this Schedule, the capital of a company shall be the aggregate of the amounts, as on the first day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year, of--. . . (iii) its other reserves as r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Addison and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR393(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Counsel for the parties submit that there is no specific finding as to whether a separate reserve had been created or as to whether the credit was made to such a reserve or to a general reserve, and that the matter may therefore be remanded to the Tribunal to record a finding thereon as such a finding is essential before a decision could be rendered as to whether the difference between depreciation allowed and depreciation charged in the books, can be deducted while computing capital base of the company.2. The Tribunal is therefore, directed to record a finding on that aspect and thereafter decided the matter1....
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran V. Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: (2002)IILLJ921Mad
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the award of the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai in ID. No. 121 of 1989, dated May 11, 1992, and to quash the same.2. ID. No. 121 of 1989 relates to the non-employment of the petitioner herein. The charge against the petitioner is that he had absented himself from reporting to duty from October 19, 1987. An enquiry was conducted on January 7, 1988 and award of removal was passed on April 1, 1988. As against the said order of removal, the petitioner had resorted (sic) to industrial dispute.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the records and as regards the conduct of the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court has gone into the issue in a detailed manner and had ultimately held that the enquiry was properly conducted and delinquent has also been provided with proper opportunity to defend himself. I do not find any reason to inter...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. Krishnamoorthi and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ576
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner have filed this writ petition challenging the acquisition proceeding in respect of their land situated in Vannivedu village, Wallajah Taluk.2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the gazette on 31.3.1993. The substance of the same was published in the locality on 28.4.1993. After conducting the enquiry under Section 5-A of the said Act, the declaration under Section 6 was made on 26.4.1994. Thereafter, the award enquiry was conducted on 10.1.1995 and the award was also passed on the same day.3. The land was purchased by the petitioners' mother on 1.4.1961 and after her death a joint patta was granted in favour of the petitioners and their sister and other brothers. However, the names of the petitioners as well as their sister and other brothers do not find a place in the notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act as well as the declaration under Section 5 of the said Act. During the enquiry under ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ravi Vs. the Commissioner, Karur Municipality and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ478
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.2. The facts that are giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:The petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 12.6.1995 purchased a house, ground and premises within the Karur Municipality limits and also a land comprised in Janman Survey No. 37/1 in Trivandrum District at Kerala. The document was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Parasala within the Trivandrum District. Subsequently, the petitioner and his vendors issued a notice contemplated under Section 88 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Municipality Act) for mutating the property lying within Karur Municipality, the first respondent herein. The first respondent by its notice dated 4.7.1995 in No. R.F 51/12/95/A2 declined to effect the transfer in respect of Assessment Nos. 4676 to 4677 on the sole ground that the sale deed in respect of the said premises had been registered in...
Tag this Judgment!Lalliammal Vs. Thulasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ407
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. This petition is to condone the delay of 128 days in representing the papers in S.A.S.R.No. 88890 of 2000. An affidavit is filed in support of the petition for condoning the delay in representation. The party has sworn to the affidavit. The reason for the delay in representation is stated as follows:It is respectfully submitted that the above second appeal was returned by the office on 23.11.2000. 10 days time was granted for representation. During Ist week of April, 2001, I have written a letter to the counsel about the stage of the case. Then only the counsel searched the bundle and found out and represented the same on 11.4.2001. In the meanwhile, there is some delay in representation. The delay is neither willful nor wanton but due to the above said bona fide reason. By condoning the representation delay no harm or prejudice will be caused to the respondents.2. From the above averments, it is clear that the registry had returned the papers on 23.11.2000. The def...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR442(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. A sum of Rs. 25,000 paid by the assessee to a purchaser of a property, which it had sold eight years earlier, has been disallowed as not forming part of its allowable business expenditure. The assessee's contention was that the payment was necessary even though it was voluntary, as the assessee had to sell the property free of encumbrances.2. No material was placed before the assessing authority by the assessee in support of that contention that there was an undischarged encumbrancewhich required the assessee having to pay the amount eight years later. The assessee itself had purchased the property several decades earlier and enjoyed the same and had sold it in the year 1968. After that sale, the Wakf Board had filed a suit against the purchaser, claiming a right to possession and the assessee was not a party to that suit. The purchaser appears to have entered into a compromise with the Wakf Board agreeing to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000. Subsequently, the purchaser ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »