Chennai Court November 2002 Judgments
A.K. Kader Kutty and Paramadevi Goyal Vs. Commissioner and Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ359
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing a portion of the order dated 6.11.1998 in G.O.Ms. No. 413 where under the petitioners had been called upon to furnish a bank guarantee at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. 2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- The petitioners had submitted a building plan before CMDA, the respondent No. 2, for construction of a multi-storeyed building. Certain objections were raised inter alia indicating that Floor Space Index was more than the permissible limit and the provision of car parking was less than the required limit. Ultimately the matter was carried in appeal before the respondent No. 1. The appeal was disposed of on 6.11.1998 where under the following observations were made :- ' . . 3. The Government have examined the appeal petition carefully. According to Development Control rules, the 'Minimum extent of site for cons...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ414
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. In this appeal filed by the State it is contended that the suit temple is a public temple. The learned single Judge has held otherwise by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. 2. The temple is situated in Thottipalayam village, Palladam Taluk. According to the plaintiff it is not a public temple and it is one that was installed by his fore-fathers. The temple does not have a Prakaram, does not have a Gopuram and there is no Hundial kept therein. According to the plaintiff, the public were permitted to worship therein on occasions, but not as of right. As against that claim of the plaintiff, the State relies upon the report filed by it by it's Inspector in which it is stated that information is received by the Inspector, that the temple was established by the grandfather of the plaintiff. He confirms in that report that there is no Gopuram, no Prakaram and that there is no Hundial kept therein. The only witness examined for the State is that Inspector, who m...
Tag this Judgment!P. Paulpandian Vs. the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Spe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC586; (2003)ILLJ1018Mad
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. By proceedings dated 20.7.2002, the second respondent proposed to cancel the settlement entered into between the employees of the second respondent/Society and the Board of Management of the second respondent/Society on 10.8.1999 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 20.7.2002 of the second respondent, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 20.7.2002 issued by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents and their men, agents and subordinates from interfering with the implementation of settlement arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 10.8.1999 entered into between the petitioner and the Board of Management of the 2nd respondent Society and his service conditions, contending that the respondents are not competent authority ...
Tag this Judgment!Global Polybag Indus. (P) Ltd. Vs. Jt. D.C., Madras Export Processing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-2002
Reported in: 2003(151)ELT512(Mad)
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petitioner herein prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in No. 19/30/95-EOU-TN-Vol. II, dated 16-8-2002 and quash the same. 2. Heard Mr. C. Natarajan, learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Inbarajan and Mr. N. Sri Prakash for the petitioner, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learnedAdditional Solicitor General, appearing for Mr. S. Gajendran, AdditionalCentral Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. With the consentof counsel on either side the writ petition was taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner a private limited company claims that it is a 100 %Export Oriented Unit governed by the Export-Import Policy (EXIM Policy) having secured the status in the year 1995. According to the policy, the manufacturing unit should be 100% Export Oriented, the Unit should export goods and services etc. The export oriented unit may import without payment of duty all types of goods includ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. K.G. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Mad)550
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Tribunal has stated a case under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and referred the following questions of law for our consideration :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to value the properties considering the valuation fixed for the earlier years pursuant to the order of the Tribunal ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had valid material in holding that the AO has gone beyond the remand order ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in treating the earlier orders of the Tribunal and the order of the CWT(A) were set aside and the entire matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication 2. The assessment year involved is 1983-84. The short facts that are necessaryfor the disposal of the tax case are that the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Union Co. (Motors) (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2006)201CTR(Mad)549
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The question of law referred at the instance of the Revenue reads as under :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Expln. 8 to Section 43(1) the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee's claim of capitalisation of interest payable on assets purchased under the deferred payment scheme of IDBI is justified ?2. The assessment year we are concerned is 1985-86. The assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested. The AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, rejected the claim of the assessee for capitalisation of interest payable on assets purchased under the deferred payment scheme of IDBI and recomputed the depreciation and investment allowance claims of the assessee. The AO relied upon the Expln. 8 to Section 43(1) of the IT Act to reject the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the claim of the assessee in respect of depreciation, but rejected the claim of the ass...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Mahasastha Pictures
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]263ITR304(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The only point that arises in the Tax Case is whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to invoke the power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this case summary assessment order was made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The Commissioner exercised the power under Section 263 of the Act. But the Appellate Tribunal held that in view of the Circular of the Board No. 176 dated 26.8.1987, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to revise the order passed in summary assessment. We have already taken the view in the order in T.C.Nos.61 and 62 of 1998 dated 6.11.2002 ('The Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu V, Madras .vs. Smt. R.G. Umaranee') that the order passed by the Income Tax Officer in the summary assessment can be revised under Section 263 of the Act, as Section 263 is widely worded to encompass any order passed by the Assessing Officer including the summa...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ramamoorthy Vs. the Board of Directors of Hindustan Photo Films Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)IILLJ241Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner, a senior citizen, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Ref. No. A1/207-BM/96 dated 13.7.96, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant all monetary and other service benefits treating the petitioner as having retired peacefully on reaching the age of superannuation.2. Heard Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mr. M. Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for M/s. King and Patridge for respondents 1, 2 and 3.3. The petitioner after putting in 33 years of service, claims that he has retired on 31.8.95 from Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Company (hereinafter called as HPF for brevity), a Government of India Undertaking. The petitioner was working as Chief Manager in HPF. The management of HPF framed charges on 12.3.94 under Rule 25 (3) of The HPF Officers Conduct Discipline and Appeal...
Tag this Judgment!V. Bhaskaran Vs. the Special Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Dire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]116CompCas404(Mad); [2003]44SCL526(Mad)
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard Mr. M. Aravind Subramanian for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.2. A criminal case is sought to be initiated against the petitioner and another person by name M. Natarajan with respect to the purchase of a foreign Car, namely, Toyoto-Lexus bearing Registration No. TN-09-Q-9999, from one Dr. S. Balakrishnan of London in contravention to Section 8(1) and 9(1) a read with Section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' ) for the offence punishable under Section 56 of the said Act read with Sections 49(3) and 49(4) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 invoking section 61 of the Act, which reads as follows:-'SECTION 61:-COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCES: ((1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), it shall be lawful for any metropolitan magistrate and for any magistrate of the first class to pass a sentence of i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amalgamations Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Mad)548
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In compliance with the directions of this court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following common question of law in relation to the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 of the assessee:-Considering the fact that no orders for acquisition of land at No. 13, Sivaswamy Iyer Street had been received by the assessee and that the assessee had acquired exemption from the acquisition proceedings, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the lands be valued as per compensation receivable under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act?2. The assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested and the question that arises in both the Tax Cases is regarding the correct principles of valuation to be adopted for valuing the land owned by the respondent-company at 13, Sivaswamy Iyer Street, Chennai. The Wealth Tax Officer valued the land at Rs.14,26,700/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »