Chennai Court December 2002 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.
Person Publicity Rep. by Its Partner K.A. Ajmal Bhukari Vs. the Corpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC219
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The above appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order passed in Application No. 2402 of 2000 in C.S. No. 126 of 1990, dated 29.9.2000. 2. The appellant filed a suit in C.S. No. 126 of 1990 seeking certain reliefs against the respondent. Pending suit, the appellant filed Application No. 2402 of 2000 to amend the plaint on the basis that the bank guaranteewas invoked and a sum of Rs. 11,29,250 was encashed by the respondent and so the appellant is entitled to recover the said amount from the respondent.3. The said Application was contested by the respondent.4. The learned Judge accepting the case of the respondent rejected the Application. Hence the above appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge is not correct in rejecting the application on the ground of delay. He further submitted that the finding of the learned Judge that the Application for amendment file deliberately after the period of limitati...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2004ACJ1790
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The employee of the insured, while driving the vehicle, which was being driven negligently by him, died as a result of the accident that occurred. The insurer disclaimed the liability on the ground that no liability is cast on the owner of the vehicle when his employee is guilty of rashness and negligence and, therefore, the insurer is also not liable.2. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for liability without fault in certain cases. That is a liability created by statute on the owner of the vehicle which was involved in an accident as a consequence of which a person suffers death or permanent disablement. In this case, the person who died drove the vehicle which was involved in the accident. The fact that the accident was caused by the person who died is not a factor which is required to be taken note of for determining the liability under Section 140(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.3. Learned counsel for the insurer sought to read common law into Sec...
S.T. Sundaram Vs. Veerateswaran,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ353
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the suit in O.S. No. 26 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Karaikkal.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner being the owner of the land in T.s. Nos. 161, 164, 165 and 166 in ward No. F, Block No. 38 at Nehru street, Karaikkal town obtained an approved plan No. 604/Kpa/98 dated 17.3.1999 from the respondents 2 and 3 for putting up a Kalyana Mandapam. In accordance with the approved plan, the petitioner had actually completed the construction of the Kalyana Mandapam even in the year 2001. The first respondent is residing at D. No. 219, Church street, Karaikkal and the Kalyana Mandapam has been put up at Door No. 58, Nehru Street, which is on the north east of the first respondent's property. The petitioner by sale deed dated 18.6.2001 purchased the property bearing old Door No. 218 lying immediately on the north of Door No. 219 owne...
Mr. G. Krishnakumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary Muni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: 2003(2)ARBLR297(Madras)
ORDERP.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2.This writ petition has been filed by the parent of one K.Ramya, a girl aged about 12 years who expired on 25.6.95 on account of the accident caused by the bullock cart belonging to respondent No.2 - Corporation, which has been driven by an employee of the Corporation for the purpose of scavenging. 3.A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition. Since some factual disputes had been raised, after hearing the counsel for both parties, D.Murugesan,J. had called upon the parties to furnish a list of persons to be appointed as Arbitrator. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the respondent had submitted the name of Sri.N.P.K.Menon, a Retired District Judge and practising Advocate in this Court. The aforesaid name was accepted by the learned Judge and Sri.N.P.K.Menon was appointed as Arbitrator to submit his report on the following questions: 1.Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation for th...
Ms. Shanthi Vs. P. Pandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ315
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner/ wife who had obtained an order of grant of litigation expenses in a sum of Rs.2000/- and the monthly maintenance of Rs.750/- per month against the respondent husband in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act filed the present Revision Petition as she is aggrieved against the order of quantum of monthly maintenance and also the order directing the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Act.2. Though the main divorce application is pending from the year 1992, the petitioner filed the application for grant of maintenance on 6.8.1998. In that application, she prayed for the grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month and also the litigation expenses in a sum of Rs.2000/- In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner averred that she was earning a sum o...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coromandal Indag Products (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: (2003)184CTR(Mad)278; [2003]260ITR289(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1984-85 ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1984-85. The question that is the subject matter of consideration is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the claim for deduction made by the assessee under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that the claim for deduction made by the assessee was false and on that basis, he levied penalty. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also upheld the order of the Assessing Officer levying penalty on the ground that...
Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]261ITR575(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in taking a view that the sum of Rs. 1,24,05,255 being purchase price and excise duty rebate/incentive is a benefit and, therefore, an income from business assessable to tax as provided in Section 2(24)(vd) read with Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' or'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,24,05,255 was trading receipt and consequently business income of the assessee for the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1986-87 ?'2. We find that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal to refer a question as well as an alternative question enabling this court to choose anyone of the questions to answer is not a proper procedure. The Appellate Tribunal, at the time of forwarding the statem...
Srinivasan Co. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN489(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following questions of law :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in computing the income with reference to the application of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1984-85 while there was an amendment introduced by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 with effect from 1-4-1985?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 is valid in law?'2. The assessment year involved is 1984-85.3. Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue fairly submits that the issues raised in both the questions are covered against the revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT : [1997]223ITR825(SC) . Following the said decisio...
Cit Vs. S. Sennimalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN488(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelling the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 147 in the assessee's case especially since he has rightly invoked the provisions of section 147(b)since the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and since the assessee himself had consented to treat the return filed on 3-6-1982 as the return filed in response to notice under section 148 ?'2. The assessment year involved is 1982-83.3. Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue fairly submits that the issues raised in the question is covered against the revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT (2000) 242 ITR 381. Following the said decisi...
Cit Vs. S. Rangasamy Nadar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR197(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian J. The respondent herein is a firm and it filed the return of income on 6-11-1986, claiming that it sustained a loss of Rs. 5,27,420 for the assessment year 1986-87. The assessing officer lodged the return under section 139(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground that the return was a non est return and the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of carry forward of loss for the assessment year 1986-87. The assessee challenged the order of the assessing officer denying the benefit of carry forward of loss by filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Madurai. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that there was no delay in filing the return by the assessee and the return filed was within the time prescribed under the Act. He, therefore, held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of carry forward of loss, particularly, the depreciation loss. He was of the view that the order passed by the assessing officer was r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›