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.
Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Daisy Morayin,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC321; (2003)1MLJ220
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The above appeal has been preferred by the State of Tamilnadu represented by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Nagercoil, being aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram dated 28.8.1990 in L.A.O.P. No. 11 of 1985, fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per cent. 2. An extent of 1.96 acre comprised in survey No. 590/4 in Athur village, Kalkulam Taluk was acquired by the State for providing house sites for Adi Dravidas. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 7.8.1984. The award enquiry was conducted by the Land Acquisition Officer in compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and all persons interested, participated in that enquiry. The said Officer, on the basis of the materials available before him, came to the conclusion that the market value of the land can be fixed at Rs. 200/- per cent. The land owners, being aggrieved by ...
John Sylem Vs. Chanthanamuthu Pillai (Died),
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad374
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiff who had brought the suit O.S. No. 106 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil seeking the relief of declaration of his title and possession of the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. The order under appeal is reported in (John Sylem vs. Chanthanamuthu Pillai). 2. The title claimed by the plaintiff rested upon the document Ex.A.1 dated 10.03.1969 in which the property was described thus: 'Property which lies in the middle portion of Lekkom 28 having an area of approximately 100 acres lying in the North East portion of the of Lekkom 28 ( consists of the west part of northern and the whole of western side) in survey No. 2917'. The boundaries given are - North : Mulagumadan Pottai; East : Survey No. 2917/3; South : Survey No. 2696; and West : Survey No. 2695/3. The northern boundary was to be located with reference to the judgment of the High Court in Appeal Suit No. 81 of 1961 relating to one Kumaraswamy. ...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Anandalatchumi,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ233
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court) Tiruvellore dated 04.09.1995 made in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 1987, New India Assurance Company Limited, Kancheepuram has preferred C.M.A.No.1064 of 1996 before this Court. Questioning the very same award, M/s. Sakthi Beverages Private Limited and United India Insurance Company, Coimbatore have preferred C.M.A.No.507 of 1997.2. Since both the appeals arise from the very same award, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.3. In respect of death of one Ramesh Babu in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 18.04.1987, his mother Anandalatchumi filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Tiruvellore, claiming a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 and one Sreekanth as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7in support of her claim. On the side of the respondents, Insur...
Cit Vs. Thangamaligai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-2002
Reported in: [2003]130TAXMAN487(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.At the instance of the revenue, a common question of law has been referred to us in relation to the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 of the assessee and the question reads as under :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the chit investment/gifts to chit subscribers would not constitute sales/business promotion expenditure and is outside the scope of the provisions of section 37(3A) of the Act ?'2. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of presenting the gift articles to the subscribers of chit at the time of joining the scheme and at the time of conclusion of the chit would amount to sales promotion expenses. A similar question was considered by this court for the earlier assessment year in the case of same assessee and this court by its order in T.C. No. 1216 of 1987 dated 29-4-1999 held that the expenditure would be...
Cwt Vs. Alfred and Berg Co. (i) (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN743(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 in relation to the assessment years 1984-85 to 1987-88 of the assessee :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that the market value of the rented portion of the building should be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration ?'2. The assessee is a company, in which public are not substantially interested. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of pharmaceuticals. The assessee also owns an immovable property situated at No. 1, Hunters Road, Choolai. It is stated that during the relevant assessment years in question, the assessee had let out portion of the building to the tenants and realised rental income from the portion of the building let out to the tenants. ...
Asservadham, Vs. the General Manager, Indian Airlines Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003(97)FLR313]; (2003)ILLJ1091Mad
P. Shanmugam, J.1. The subject matter of the appeal relates to question of regularization of casual workers. The learned single Judge upheld the Scheme of the respondent for regularization. Not being satisfied, the workers have filed the above writ appeals. 2. The appellants are working with the respondent Indian Airlines Limited as Class IV Unskilled Casual Workers like, helpers, loaders, peons, etc. They are being engaged casually for a maximum period of ninety days at a stretch in a year. According to the appellants, some of them have been working from 1977 onwards and though there were regular recruitment, the appellants' claims were ignored. By a Notification dated 04.06.1997, the Indian Airlines Limited called for applications from those who worked as casual/part-time/contract basis for a maximum period of ninety days during a period of twelve consecutive months in the last three years for the Post of Helpers. As many of the appellants are not qualified either with regard to the ...
N. Kumaresan Vs. State, Rep. by Secretary to Government Prohibition an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ1494; [2004]265ITR481(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Challenge is to the order dated 24.7.2002 passed by the second respondent, District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram, ordering the preventive detention of one Kasi, S/o Kutti on the ground that he is a bootlegger and that his continued liberty would hamper the public order.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Swamidoss Manokaran, raises only two points assailing the correctness of the order as well as the detention. Firstly, he points out that the detention seems to have been ordered casually, even without reference to the existing facts. For this, the learned counsel takes us through the grounds of detention, and more particularly ground 5(ii), wherein the detaining authority has stated as follows:-'He was ordered to be remanded till 26.07.2002. He has not filed any bail application so far in the court. But there is a possibility of his filing of a bail application and being enlarged on bail by the criminal court. I am also aware that in ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electro Alloy Special Steel Castings (P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)521; [2003]264ITR97(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The counsel for the respondent was absent on 4th Dec., 2002. Today also the counsel for the respondent is not present. However, since the respondent has been served, we proceed to dispose of the matter. The appeal was admitted on the following question of law :'Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that for the asst. yr. 1989-90, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the Section 80HH of the IT Act, even though Hosur, in which town, the assessee1 s industrial undertaking is located had ceased to be a notified backward area in the year 1986.'The appeal has been preferred against the order passed in M.P. No. 103/Mds/1998 by the Tribunal Chennai.2. The brief facts necessary for filing the miscellaneous petition before the Tribunal arose in the following circumstances :The respondent (hereafter referred to as assessee) filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Tribunal contending that the order of CIT(A) holding that the assessee w...
Cit Vs. Electro Alloy Special Steel Castings (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]128TAXMAN666(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. The counsel for the respondent was absent on 4-12-2002. Today also the counsel for the respondent is not present. However, since the respondent has been served, we proceed to dispose of the matter. The appeal was admitted on the following question of law:'Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that for the assessment year 1989-90 the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, even though Hosur, in which town, the assessee's industrial undertaking is indicated had ceased to be a notified backward area in the year 1986?'The appeal has been preferred against the order passed in M.P. No. 103 MDS/ 1998 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.2. The brief facts necessary for filing the miscellaneous petition before the Appellate Tribunal arose in the following circumstances:The respondent (hereinafter referred to as assessee) filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Income...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Alfred and Berg Co. (i) (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)494
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 in relation to the asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1987-88 of the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that the market value of the rented portion of the building should be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration ?'2. The assessee is a company, in which public are not substantially interested. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of pharmaceuticals. The assessee also owns an immovable property situated at No. 1, Hunters Road, Choolai. It is stated that during the relevant assessment years in question, the assessee had let out portion of the building to the tenants and realised rental income from the portion of the building let out to the tenants. The WTO applied Section 40(3)(vi) of the Fin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »