Chennai Court September 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.
S. Mazhaimeni Pandian, Advocate and Four ors. Vs. the State of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ513
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.24625, 24696, 25014 and 25015 of 2002, who are probono public have challenged the correctness of the action of the Government in discontinuing the B.L. Degree Course both three years and five years in Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai, and have sought for a direction to the Government to continue the same, as it was done earlier.2. The petitioner in W.P.No.25632/2002, a practicing advocate and social worker has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to stop all processes relating to the notification given on or about 6.7.2002, announcing about the new five-year B.A.,B.L. ( Hons.) Course, without providing for age and marks relaxations for Most Backward Class and Backward Class students.3. Originally, there was only one Law College at Chennai, for the entire Madras State, called Government Law College, Chennai. Taking into consideration the demand for law course, the Government wanted to have Law Col...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Reliance Motor Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)86; [2003]260ITR571(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us for our consideration, at the instance of the Revenue, is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of motor cars is not includible in the net wealth as they have been held as stock-in-trade by the assessee The assessment year is 1984-85.2. The provisions of the Wealth-tax Act as amended by Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, as they stood in that assessment year, specifically provided for inclusion of the value of the motor cars in the assets of an assessee for the purpose of the assessment under the Wealth-tax Act, That was provided for in Section 40(3)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1983. There was no provision made therein for excluding the value of the stock-in-trade.3. The assessee, which is a dealer in motor cars, claimed that the value of the cars, which were its stock-in-trade could not be included in the wealth-tax assessment. The Commission...
Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR94(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us for our consideration is, 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the applicant would not be eligible for deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act in relation to the two sums of Rs.5,87,044/- and Rs.5,16,853/- in view of the same having been claimed under Section 35(2B) and in spite of the same having been disallowed under the said section. The assessment year is 1984-85. 2. Out of the two sums referred to in the question, the sum of Rs.5,16,853/- is the value of a machine imported by the assessee on 22.08.1980 and which machine was used in carrying out scientific research in a program approved by the authority prescribed under Section 35(2B) of the Act. The assessee's claim for deduction in respect of the value of that machine under Section 35(2B) was rejected by the assessing officer. The assessee's claim that that expenditure be considere...
R. Jeyaratchagan Vs. the Chief Educational Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ699
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents.2. Admittedly, due to certain disputes among the Board of Directors of the management of the third respondent-Higher Secondary School, the administration of the school was entrusted with the second respondent, by proceedings dated 9.11.1999 of the Director of Education, conferring the following powers on the second respondent:a. Granting leave to the staff and employees of the school. b. Approval and disbursement of amounts with regard to P.F., festival allowance, Cooptex Advance, marriage advance, etc. c. Signing in the forms and applications relating to P.F. savings, transfer and settlement of accounts of the employees and staff. d. Entering the necessary particulars and signing in the matters relating to the retirement of employees, their salary fixation, their selection grade and special grade fixation, etc. e. Relieving the employees on their resignation or retirement in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maps Tours and Travels
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2004)191CTR(Mad)177; [2003]260ITR655(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing that the assessee is entitled to depreciation in respect of the ten motor cars purchased on March 30, 1989, and March 31, 1989, even though the assessee had not proved the fact that the assets were used for the purpose of business during the relevant accounting year ?'2. The assessment year is 1989-90.3. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of renting out cars. It had purchased ten motor cars on March 30, 1989, and March 31, 1989. The formalities with regard to the registration of the vehicles, payment of road tax, etc., had not been completed before the end of March 31, 1989. The assessee also did not produce any proof of having used those cars for its business before the end of March 31, 1989.4. The assessee's claim for depreciation of these vehicles was negatived by the Assess...
V.S.T. Motors Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: [2003]260ITR440(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the assessee. The questions are, '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payments made to K. S. Transports attract the provisions of Section 40A(2) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the disallowance out of the amounts paid to K. S. Transport on the ground it was excessive and unreasonable ?' 2. The assessment years are 1985-86 and 1986-87. The assessee is a company. It carries on business as agents for trucks manufactured by Telco. It also maintains a stock yard at Chennai. For the purpose of transporting the vehicles from the stock yard to the assessee's show room as also for delivering the vehicles to the customers at their place of business, the assessee had engaged a firm, K. S. Transports, to which it was paying a sum of Rs. 1...
In Re: S. Durai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ157
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. S. Durai, the contemner filed a private complaint against one Mrs. Manjula Surender, which was taken on file in C. C. No. 6091 of 1988 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 279 and 427 I.P.C., alleging that on 10-8-1996, at about 12.30 noon, when he was standing by his bi-cycle, the said Manjula Surender came in a car in a rash manner and caused damage to his bi-cycle.2. As against the said proceedings, Manjula Surender filed a petition in this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 14310 of 1999, seeking for quashing of the same on various grounds. This Court, by order dated 12-1-2001, after hearing learned counsel for both parties, quashed the said proceedings on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation.3. S. Durai, the complainant in that case, instead of challenging the said order by filing an appeal before appropriate forum, sent a petition dated 18-10-2001 to the Registry of this Court, seeking...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)680
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. Two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year is 1986-87. The questions are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rent receipts derived by the assessee-company from letting out of properties should be assessed under the head 'business' thereby allowing the expenses incurred for letting out the properties as business expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in not considering the applicability of the provisions of Section 43B for disallowing the disputed urban land tax if the income is to be assessed under 'Business' and the non-deductibility of the cost of supplying drinking water from the income from property?'2. The assessee is an incorporated company. The main object of the assessee-company is acquiring certain properties in the city of Madras, to let out such properties to ...
Venkata Subramaniam and Velmurugan Vs. M. Dhanapal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ527
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration that they are entitled to the first item of the suit property and for possession of the same, after the life time of Poongavanam Ammal, the 5th defendant. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property, originally, belonged to Agilandammal, the paternal grand mother of the plaintiffs. In and by the settlement deed, dated 19.1.1955, Agilandammal settled the suit properties in favour of Poongavannammal, the 5th defendant, giving life estate to her and the vested remainder to her sons. The said settlement deed was duly executed, attested and registered and it was also accepted by the settlee, Poongavannammal. Subsequently, Agilandammal and Poongavanammal, the 5th defendant jointly sold the suit first item to the defendants 3 and 4 under a sale deed dated 28.12.1963. In the said sale deed, there is a reference about the settlement deed dated 19.1.1955. Subsequently,...
Jayalakshmi Vs. Krishna Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-2002
Reported in: II(2003)DMC111; (2002)3MLJ532
Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. The only question that is raised in this second appeal is whether a woman, who has married a man when the earlier marriage has not been dissolved in accordance with law and when the first wife is still living, is a wife, who is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 2. According to the learned counsel for the appellant she is entitled to claim maintenance. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that she is not entitled to claim maintenance and that, a Division Bench of this court is squarely on the point and would bind this decision in this second appeal. 3. Section 18 of the Act reads as follows:'Maintenance of wife.-- (1)Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »