Chennai Court June 2002 Judgments
N. Sastha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR553(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.This judgment will dispose of T.C. Nos. 144 and 145 of 1998. They are revisions filed under section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), challenging the common order passed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').The assessee owns acres of land having matured rubber trees in Aramannallur village in Thovala Taluk as also some promboke lands. He filed returns for three assessment years, viz., 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 under the provisions of the Act. We are not concerned presently with the assessment year 1985-86 because we have already disposed of T.C. No. 143 of 1998 relating to that assessment year.The assessment of both the years was made and two separate appeals came to be filed. During the assessment, the assessing officer added certain income and disallowed certain expenditure. He had disallowed the expenditure for maintenance of immature rubber trees....
Tag this Judgment!Usv Limited Vs. Ipca Laboratories Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC21(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J.1. This is an application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent and its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers and representatives from in any manner manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising or dealing directly or indirectly in medicinal preparations under the trade mark PIOZED or any other trade mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the trade mark PIOZ of the applicant so as to pass off the respondent's preparations as and for the preparations of the applicant or in any other manner whatsoever connected with the applicant till the disposal of the suit.2. The applicant is the plaintiff and has filed the suit against the respondent, who is the defendant for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from passing off their medicinal preparations under the trade...
Tag this Judgment!Britto Gomez, Vs. Xavier Gomez,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ701
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The revision petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in the suit.2. The case in brief is as follows:- Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are sisters and the 3rd plaintiff is their brother. The plaintiffs are living together in the suit property. The defendants are the children of the deceased brother of the plaintiffs. The suit property originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiffs and she had executed an unregistered Will and bequeathed the property in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the retired teachers. The 3rd plaintiff served in the Shipping Corporation and retired and all of them were living in the property after retirement. The plaintiff's mother died in 1989. The defendants lived in other places and they forcibly entered into possession of the 2nd schedule of the property on 18.06.2000 and dispossessed the plaintiffs. They also gave a complaint to the police, but no action was taken. Hence, the suit is filed under section 6 of the Specific R...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu by Authorised Officer Cum Assistant Conservator of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ296
ORDERK.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. The petitioner prays for writ of Certiorari to call and quash the orders passed in C.A.No.18/1994 dated 23.1.1995, on the file of District and Sessions Judge, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore. The Writ Petition has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu.2. On 20.12.1992 at about 8.30pm the Forest Ranger and his party, while they were watching the movements in the forest noticed one Mahindra van, bearing Reg. No.TN-01-B-9396, 100 metres away from the Kelur R.F. in Polur Range on Arani Polur Highways gave a signal. On seeing the signal two persons emerged from the Eucalyptus plantations in the Kelur R.F., beat and reached the van. The second accused alighted from the van and after a brief talk, reversed the van in the said plantation. Few minutes thereafter they heard the sound of loading sandalwood and closing the doors of the van. The party rushed to the spot in a jeep and intercepted the said van when they were about to reach the main road. They we...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation Ltd., Peri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: [2002(95)FLR165]; (2002)IIILLJ692Mad
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 31.05.1995 in I.D.No.46 of 1993 modifying the punishment of dismissal into reinstatement with service benefits without backwages, the Management of Dheeran Chinnamalai Transport Corporation has filed the above writ petition to quash the same on various grounds.2. According to the petitioner, on 11.06.1992 the second respondent was on duty in the bus bearing Registration No.TN.45/N.0229 plying between Dindingul and Trichy. One of the Junior Superintendent of the Petitioner Corporation travelled in the said bus between Dindigul and Manapparai. He travelled along with his friend and paid Rs.20/- to the second respondent towards fare for both tickets. The fare between Dindigul and Manapparai was Rs.7.40. The second respondent issued two tickets and paid a balance of Rs.5.20 to the Junior Superintendent. On 12.06.1992, the Junior Superintendent verified the tickets which had been issued to him with t...
Tag this Judgment!Basheer Unnissa Begum and Syed Mohammed Rowther Vs. T. Sundaram (Decea ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)2MLJ747
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful defendants in the courts below are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to 'B' schedule property and also for recovery of possession after removal of the construction put up in the property and for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from putting up any further construction and with a claim of future damages. 'A' schedule property originally belonged to one Chinnathai Ammal, maternal grand mother of the plaintiff and she had settled the same in favour of the plaintiff and his mother Gunabushanammal. Subsequent to the settlement, they were in possession of A schedule property. The plaintiff's mother died and thereafter, the plaintiff became absolutely entitled to A schedule property. The 1st defendant had purchased the property west of 'A' schedule property. In spite of the objection raised by the plaintiff, the 1st defendant had trespassed upon a portion of A schedule ...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Vs. Rajamanickam and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad27; (2002)3MLJ506
M. Karpavinayagam, J. 1. Perumal, the defendant is the appellant herein. 2. The respondents filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of suit property. After trial, the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed an appeal before the District Judge, Trichy. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge had reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come forward with this Second Appeal.3. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, they are brothers and the suit property was originally belonged to Irulayee Ammal, their grandmother. On 25.7.1975, the said Irulayee Ammal settled the suit property measuring about 24 cents in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents by way of a gift deed. From then onwards, the suit property has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. On 5.5.1976, Iyyamperumal, the junior paternal uncle of the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Kamalam Transport (Rep. by Prop. S. Vellingiri (D) and H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-2002
Reported in: (2003)ILLJ1145Mad
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The management of Kamalam Transport, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in C.P. No. 206 of 1990, dated September 26, 1994, directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards security deposit to the first respondent-workman, has filed the above writ petition.2. According to the petitioner, his concern is a proprietary one and he is the proprietor of the same. The concern is carrying on transport business. The first respondent joined the petitioner concern on February 4, 1983. The petitioner concern is not in the habit of receiving any security deposit for the appointment of any employee in their concern even for regular appointment. The first respondent had created a fabricated receipt and had received the signature from the petitioner for a receipt to be sent to one of its customers. Thus, the first respondent had committed forgery and had claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000/-on false and frivolous basis. In the said circumstance, the first respondent fi...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilnadu, Chennai Vs. J.H. Tarapore ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)557; [2002]257ITR474(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. The questions referred, at the instance of the Revenue, to us are as follows:'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs.9,82,068/- being the amount received under the arbitration award for the work done in connection with the feeder canals for the Farakka Barrage Project during the period 1-1-1966 to 30-9-1969 was not a revenue receipt but only a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the source being the work executed by the firm and that as it passed on to the assessee, Shri J.H. Tarapore in terms of settlement deed, it can only be an application of income?' 2. We are not setting out the facts involved as they are covered in paragraphs 4 to 7 of our judgment in T.C. No.587 and 588 of 1984.3. In T.C. No.587 of 1984, which was pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.H. Tarapore (Decd.) (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)176CTR(Mad)496; [2002]257ITR305(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment shall govern two tax cases, they being T. C. Nos. 587 and 588 of 1984.2. In T. C. No. 587 of 1984, the questions referred are at the instance of the Revenue. They are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding the sum of Rs. 97,94,949 being the amount received under the arbitration award for the work done in connection with the feeder canals for the Farakka Barrage Project during the period from January 1, 1967 to September 30, 1969, was not a revenue receipt but only a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee, Shri J. H. Tarapore, and, therefore, exempt from tax ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the source being the work executed by the firm, the income accrued to the firm and that as it passed on to the asses-see Shri J. H. Tarapore, in terms of settlement deed it can be only in application of income ?'...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »