Chennai Court January 2002 Judgments
Cgt Vs. K. Arunthathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-2002
Reported in: [2002]255ITR214(Mad)
V. S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. The department is challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, upholding the order passed by the lower authority and dismissing the appeal of the department.2. The assessee herein is a mother and she had gifted certain gold ornaments, silverware and brassware to her daughter at the time when the marriage of the daughter was performed. It so happened that at that time even the father of the daughter had gifted her certain gold ornaments.3. However, in the case of the father it was found that since the gift was covered by section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, the claim for the gift-tax was not maintainable. Now it is the case of the mother, who is admittedly an independent assessee, which would obviously mean that she also may have the income of her own. Be that as it may, if in the case of a father it is accepted that the gifts from him would be covered under section 5(1)(vii), there is no reason why the same logic should not ...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep. by Its Sr. Regional Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ684
ORDER1. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited plaintiff in unnumbered plaint on the file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi have preferred these two civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved against the order dated 09.03.2001 by which the plaint was rejected and the unnumbered petition under Section 7(A) of Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act to fix a reasonable rent was also rejected. 2. The case in brief for the disposal of both these revision petitions is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit as a tenant under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act directing the first defendant to renew the lease in respect of the suit properties for a period of ten years from 01.10.1999 and if the first defendant fails to execute the lease deed, pass a decree to execute the lease by Court on be first defendant . The plaintiff also filed an application under section 7(A) of Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act to fix a reasonable rent for the occ...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Andiammal and Chinna Perumal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ728
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. This petition coming on for orders as to hearing on this day, upon perusing the petition, and upon hearing the arguments of Miss. Lathamaheshwari, counsel for the Petitioner, and of Mr. N. Thiagarajan, counsel for the Respondents, the Court made the following Order:-The 2nd defendant in O.S. No.820 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Salem is the petitioner herein. The above Revision has been filed against the Order dismissing I.A. No.709 of 2000 filed under Section 151 C.P.C to try issue No.4 ie., ' Whether the plaintiff has valued suit properly and paid correct court fees as a preliminary issue '. 2.The first respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.828 of 1995 against the 2nd respondent/first defendant and the petitioner herein, praying the court to grant a decree setting aside the sale deed dated 18.3.1993 executed by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant as vitiated by fraud, cheating and fraudulent misrepresentation and not valid in law ...
Tag this Judgment!Y. Sreelatha @ Roja Vs. Mukanchand Bothra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)559; 2003CriLJ1938
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Y. Sreelatha @ Roja was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo S.I. for two months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed an appeal before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was admitted on 3.8.1999.2. Mukanchand Bothra, the complainant, aggrieved over the inadequacy of the sentence, filed a revision before this Court in Crl. R.C. No.736 of 1999 and the same was admitted and notice was ordered on 23.7.1999.3. On the application filed by the parties before this Court, the appeal against conviction pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, was directed to be posted before this Court for being heard along with Crl. R.C. 736 of 1999. Accordingly, the said appeal papers were received by the Registry of this Court and the same was renum...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Coffee Worker's Co-op. Society Ltd., rep. By Its President, Pon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ691
ORDERA.S.Venkatachalamoorthy, J. 1. The prayer that is sought for in this Writ Petition isto call for the records relating to the Order dated 25/3/1999passed by the 5th respondent/Tribunal in T.P. No.3091/97 readwith the Order dated 27.9.1990 in TNGST No.584757/89-90 issuedby the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequentlydirect the respondents to pass orders on merits after givingan opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance withlaw. 2. The brief facts are as follows:- The petitioner/Society is registered under thePondicherry Cooperative Societies Act with its registered office at Pondicherry. The Society serves food and drinks toits customers. During 1989-90 the annual turnover was roughlyabout Rs.98 lakhs. The 4th respondent herein passed theassessment order dated 27/09/1990 in form No.19 for theassessment year 1989-90. A penalty under Section 12(5)(iii)to the extent of Rs.3,58,537/- was also levied. On 5/11/1990,the petitioner addressed the Appellate Assistant Co...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Rabayakkal Vs. Singarayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)1MLJ803
ORDERM. Chockalingam, J. 1. This civil revision petition is preferred from theorder of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller) madein an interlocutory application filed under S.11(4) of theTamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in a pendingRCOP proceedings. 2. The respondent landlord filed an eviction petitionunder S.10(2)(1) of the said Act alleging that the petitionertenant committed willful default in payment of rents. Onservice of notice, the tenant entered appearance and filed hiscounter. During the pendency of the said evictionproceedings, the landlord filed an application under S.11(4) of the Act praying to stop all further proceedings, and makean order directing the tenant to put the landlord inpossession of the building, in view of the non payments of theaccrued arrears of rent. The tenant has also filed a detailedobjection seriously contesting the said application. The RentController after enquiry, has passed the impugned orderdirecting the petitioner te nan...
Tag this Judgment!Abt Parcel Services Vs. Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-2002
Reported in: [2002(93)FLR1103]; (2002)IILLJ688Mad
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated January 21, 1994, passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 1478 of 1992.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The worker, the second respondent herein was appointed by the management by its order dated September 14, 1990, initially for a period of two months from October 5, 1990 till December 5, 1990. Again he was freshly appointed by another order dated November 26, 1990 for a period of two months from December 5, 1990, till February 4, 1991. Thereafter, he was offered regular employment on probation for a period of six months from February 5, 1991, till August 4, 1991. By its letter dated August 1, 1991, the period of probation was extended for another six months from Augusts, 1991, to February 4, 1992, and finally it was again extended for another period of one month from February 4, 1992, till March 4, 1992. Thereafter, on February 24, 1992, the management terminated the ser...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruchirapalli District Amaravathi Consumer Co-operative Societies Who ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2002
Reported in: [2002(94)FLR185]; (2002)IIILLJ230Mad
ORDERA.K. Rajan, J.1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order of theappellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Subsistance Allowance Act (DeputyCommissioner of Labour),Tiruchirapalli. 2.The brief facts are the workman was an employee under thiswrit petitioner. He was kept under suspension on 6.6.1988 till 2/12/19 91 andin the meanwhile, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and enquiry wasconducted and ultimately, he was dismissed from service on 6.6.1988 withretrospective effect. After this, the workman filed an application before the2nd respondent herein on 1.2.1993 for payment of subsistance allowance in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistance Allowance Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since as per the provisions of theAct, such an application has to be filed within one year from the date ofaccrual of the payment, an application was also filed to condone the delay of2 years, 7 months and 26 days. The reason given for the delay was that due tothe p...
Tag this Judgment!Nayagam Vs. State by Inspector of Police N. 2, Kasimedu Police Station ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: 2002(1)ALT(Cri)544; 2002(83)ECC821
ORDER1. Nayagam, wife of Chinnasundar, the appellant herein was convicted for an offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.2. The prosecution case is that on 21.9.1995 at about 2.45 p.m. in front of Kuthallamman Koil, within the Kasimedu Police limit, the appellant was found in possession of 2.200 grams of heroin. To prove the prosecution case, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined, Exs. P.1 to P. 5 were filed and M.O.I was marked.3. The case of the appellant is one of total denial. The learned counsel for the appellant, would raise several grounds to establish that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant is not valid in law. However reference about those grounds would be unnecessary as the appeal has got to be allowed on the simple point namely, Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which is a mandatory provision, has not been complied with.4. According to P.W.2, Sub-Inspector of Police, the appellant, mo...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-2002
Reported in: [2008]296ITR514(Mad)
1. The appeal is against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, whereby the claim of deduction of Rs. 81,68,516 and Rs. 15,27,676 were disallowed as the deductions under Section 36(2) and 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Obviously, these amounts were the provisions made and were earlier allowable under Section 36(1)(vii). However, thereafter an amendment came to be made by adding Explanation to Section 36, because of which any provisions made for bad and doubtful debts were not to be treated as allowable deductions.2. Mr. Janardhana Raja, learned Counsel arguing on behalf of the assessee very fairly contends that he may not have any case on account of the Explanation added to Section 36(1)(vii) and that the provisions made for the payment of bad and doubtful debts may not be allowed in his favour on that count. We also find that the authorities below have correctly read the provisions of Section 36(2) and 36(1)(vii) and have refused to give relief to the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »