Chennai Court July 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.
Smt. Premakumari, Proprietrix, Velavan Flour Mills and Smt. Mangalalak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad44; (2002)3MLJ372
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The substantial question of law that was framed by this Court at the time of admission was whether as per Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, the Electrical Inspector alone has to decide whether the meter in question is correct or faulty. Both the appeals arise out of suits relating to the dispute regarding the consumption of energy. The factual details may differ, but otherwise the matters to be decided in these second appeals are similar. 2. Both the appellants have flour mills. They were allowed a certain quantity of energy for consumption depending on the sanctioned loan. Over a period, it was found that the consumption was much below and therefore, the Electricity Board conducted an inspection. On inspection, it was found that an artificial hole was made in the meter and a foreign material was inserted therein so as to arrest the meter thereby recording a lower consumption of energy. Prior to the filing of suits out of these second appeals arise, there ...
B. Nagi Reddi Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)129
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.This judgment shall dispose of all the three tax cases as the question of law involved is common and the only difference is that of the assessment year.2. The question of law, which is referred to us at the instance of the assessee and as per the directions of the High Court, is as under'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the income from shooting hire charges is not agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 ?3. The assessee had shown the loss of more than Rs. 1,00,000 in all the three assessment years, viz., 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83. As the loss claimed was more than Rs. 1,00,000 in each assessment year, draft assessment orders were proposed to which the assessee filed his objections. On the basis of that, the assessment orders came to be passed. In his returns, the assessee had shown certain income as income fro...
Dindigul Spinners Association and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-2002
Reported in: (2004)ILLJ322Mad
Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by the associations on the touch-stone of unreasonableness in fixation of the electricity tariff and touching upon Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled law that no association can maintain a writ petition touching upon Article 19 of the Constitution of India for the reason that such association is not a citizen. In the circumstances, these writ petitions are dismissed. But, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the individual members of the association from invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No costs. Consequently, connected pending writ petition and miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed....
The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ162
ORDER:The Government have carefully examined the policy to be adopted for licensing of the Indian Made Foreign Liquor retail vending shops for the block period 2001-2004 and have decided that a new licensing system should be followed for the licensing of the Indian Made Foreign Liquor retail vending shops for the block period 2001-2004.2.The Government also direct that, a)The number of Indian Made Foreign Liquor retail vending shops for the entire State for the block period 2001-2004 be fixed at 6000.b)The privilege fee of the Indian Made Foreign Liquor retail vending shops for the year 2001-2002 shall be worked out on notified area basis, taking the average privilege fee of the last three years and providing for some suitable increase. There should be a uniform privilege fee for a given notified area.c)A notice inviting applications in a format to be prescribed for the grant of licence for the year 2001-2002 should be published in the newspapers on 23.6.2001 and 24.6.2001 stipulating ...
R. Padmanaban, Vs. Sri Vidhya Vakeesa theerthar and V.P. Vadivel Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ398
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the courts below are the appellants.2. The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiffs for themselves and also representing the public worshippers filed a suit for declaration that the lease in favour of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant under a document dated 20.10.1987 is null and void and a consequential injunction. The suit property is a Public Religious Trust belongs to Sri Vyasaraja Mutt, which is having the main office at Sosalai in Karnataka State(hereinafter referred to as 'the Mutt'). This Mutt is essentially a religious institution of the Madhwa Community. Vyasaraja, a saint and Philosopher, founder of the Mutt had many disciples. They were living in various places in South India preaching Madwa Philosophy and wherever they attained Mukthi, their mortal remains were interned and Samadhis were constructed and the people offer worship at the Samadhi and there were religious functions as well performed in those place...
Krishnamoorthy Gounder Vs. Sitarama Gounder S/O Krishnaswamy Gounder, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ284
K. Sampath, J.1. The above appeals arise out of a common judgment in four suits tried jointly by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.2. A.S.567/92 arises out of O.S.No.25/86. That is a suit for partition and separate possession or in the alternative, for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant therein from in any manner encumbering, alienating or dealing with the suit properties during his life time and for future profits.3. A.S.No.373/2002, which arises out of O.S.No.359/85 on the file of the Sub Court, Pondicherry,/ O.S.No.352/88 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore, is for a declaration that the plaintiff therein is the absolute owner and possessor of the estate of his father Krishnasamy Gounder and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment.4. Transfer A.S.No.217/2002 arises out of O.S.No.216/87 on the file of the Sub Court, Pondicherry/O.S.No.353/88 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore...
Cit Vs. S.R. Sunil and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN50(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. This reference is at the instance of the revenue and the following question of law has been referred for the assessment year 1982-83 relating to the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cash assistance, air freight subsidy and duty drawback should be included in the profits of the assessee for computing relief under section 80HHA/80HH/80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The reference is pending on the file of this court from the year 1992. Hence, we directed the department to serve notice on the respondent by private service by order dated 12-6-2002 and the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the revenue has produced before this court the letter of the Income Tax Officer, Ward XII(2), Chennai, dated 22-6-2002 stating that the notice has been served on the respondent. He has also produced the acknowledgement for the receipt of the notice by the assessee....
S. Veerabadra Naicker Vs. S. Sambanda Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad19; (2002)3MLJ834
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Veerabadra Naicker, the appellant herein is the defendant.2. Sambanda Naicker, the respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the same. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, Sambanda Naicker, the plaintiff, respondent herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence, this second appeal.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: 'The suit properties originally belonged to one Adhikesavalu Naidu. The said Adhikesavalu Naidu purchased the said properties as per the sale deed dated 1.11.1966. On 5.1.1977, he sold the properties to Sambanda Naicker, the plaintiff as per the registered sale deed. When the plaintiff attempted to take possession of the suit properties after his purchase, the defendant obstructed the plaintiff from taking possession. However, on the intervention of the Panchayatdars, the de...
Chinnaraj Vs. Sheik Davood Nachiar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad89; (2002)3MLJ784
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant in the second appeals is the defendant in the suits, namely O.S. Nos. 308 and 310 of 1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam, laid by the respondents/plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the suit properties and for consequential past and future profits. 2. According to the respondents/plaintiffs, they are the owners of the suit properties. Even though the appellant/defendant is the tenant in the suit properties for monthly rent, the respondents/plaintiffs terminated the tenancy by 30.6.1999 and directed the appellant/defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit properties on 1.7.1999. Since the appellant/defendant refused to do so, the respondents/plaintiffs laid the said suits.3.1. The appellant/defendant resisted the suits contending that he entered into two agreements of sale on 3.2.1996 with the respondents/plaintiffs to purchase each of the suit properties for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-, when he was already in posses...
Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd. Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-2002
Reported in: [2002]125TAXMAN53(Mad)
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reduction allowed in the tax payable by the amount of surcharge deposit made with IDBI under the Companies Deposits (Surcharge on Income Tax) Scheme should not be treated as tax paid while arriving at the chargeable profits under rule 2(1) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'2. The learned counsel Mr. Janardhana Raja very fairly states that the question is covered against the assessee in a decision in CIT v. M. Goodwell & Co. Ltd. : [1996]219ITR23(Mad) . In that view, the question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. No costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »