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.
Mrs. Kiran Batra Vs. the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-1 a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: II(2004)BC290
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Alleging that the 2nd respondent bank seeks to execute the exparte decree dated 21.11.2000 made in O.A.No.494/1998, even during pendency of interim application in I.A.No.34/2001 in O.A.No.494/1998 on the file of the first respondent filed to set aside the said exparte decree dated 21.11.2000 from December 2001, the petitioner seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent herein to dispose of on merits within a reasonable time to be fixed by this court I.A.No.34 of 2001 in O.A.No.494 of 1998 pending before the first respondent so far as the petitioner is concerned.2.1: Mr. N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the following entries mentioned in the diary for adjourning the above I.A. :1. December 2000 I.A.NO.34/2001 filed. Notice ordered returnable on 30.03.2001 (3 months). 2. 10.01.2001 Notice served on the counsel for the 2nd respondent 3. 30.3.2001 Presiding Officer not sitti...
B. Mariappan Vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ706
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Alleging that the decree and judgment dated 22.6.1993 made in A.S.No.15 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi setting aside the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi, dated 22.12.1989 made in O.S.No.394 of 1986 laid by the respondents herein along with one Alagamuthu Konar for declaration and injunction with regard to the rights in Periyakulam Konmai is a nullity for want of jurisdiction, the petitioner seeks a writ of declaration to declare that the decree passed in O.S.No.394 of 1986 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi, pursuant to the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.15 of 1990 on 22.6.1993, on the file of the Sub Court, Tenkasi is a nullity.2. The suit sought to be declared as a nullity, was admittedly filed in a representative capacity by Alagamuthu Konar and villagers of Keelkalangal Village, but the petitioner has not chosen to impleaded the villagers and Alagamuthu, and on this ground itself this writ p...
R.Y. Gaitonde and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)89; [2003]260ITR330(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee is a commission agent. It represents foreign principals, those principals being persons engaged in the manufacture of leather goods. The assessee assisted those principals in procuring leather from the local suppliers. The actual exports of the goods are made by the local traders or manufacturers in leather, and not by the assessee.2. The assessee claimed the benefit of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, more specifically Sub-clauses (ii), (v), (vi) and (vii). The assessee contended that the assessee had made available to the foreign buyer information regarding the markets inside India for the goods and services exported, that it had incurred expenses on the preparation and submission of tenders for the supply or provision outside India of the goods, services and facilities and performed activities incidental thereto and had performed services outside India in connection with, or incidental to, the execution of any contract for the supply of g...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. S.A.P. Annamalai (Decd.) Through Lr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)185CTR(Mad)562
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred is as to whether the order of the Tribunal is not contrary to the provisions of Expln. (b) to Section 25(2) of the WT Act. The assessment year is 1983-84.2. In the wealth-tax proceedings relating to the asst. yr. 1983-84, the value of the house property owned by the assessee at Purasawalkam High Road was determined at Rs. 26,58,000. The assessment was made for that year accepting that value, For the subsequent year, the matter was referred to the Departmental Valuation Officer, who valued the property at Rs. 55,42,000 as on 31st March, 1984. The assessee owned another property at Coimbatore which had been valued at Rs. 2,50,000 in the asst. yr. 1983-84 and which value had been accepted. For the year 1984-85, the same property was valued by the Valuation Officer at Rs. 4,93,000.3. The CWT, thereafter, exercising the revisional powers under Section 25 of the WT Act, revised the order of assessment for the year 1983-84. The order of the C...
K.S. Subbiah Pillai and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)522; [2003]260ITR304(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred at the instance of the assessee are :'1. Whether on a true construction of the Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, interest, rent and commission are to be deducted from export profits or only net receipts, if any, after taking into account the payments?2. Whether on a true construction of the Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act all the net receipts by way of interest, rent and commission should be aggregated before deduction and only the net balance, if any, should be deducted from export profits?' 2. The second question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. There is no discussion of that aspect either in the assessment order or in the order of the Commissioner. The claim of the assessee was confined to the amount deductible towards interest. The second question is, therefore, returned unanswered.3. So far as the first question is concerned, the Explanation to Section 80HHC in Claus...
South India Tourist Home (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-2002
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)496
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The questions referred are :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of IT Act in respect of plant and machinery including pipes, sanitary fittings, lifts, A.C. plant and other mechanical, kitchen and heat equipments ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in its view that a hotel is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of IT Act?'2. The assessee is engaged in the business of providing boarding and lodging facilities, in other words, a hotel. This Court in the case of Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd v. CIT : [2000]241ITR279(Mad) , and the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. ITO : [2000]245ITR538(SC) have held that investment allowance is not allowable for hotels, as there is no activity of manufacture when food is cooked and served in the hotel or...
Jayaraman and Appar Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad29; (2002)3MLJ732
P. Thangavel, J.1. This Review Application has been filed by the respondents as review applicants against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2001 and made in A.S. No.591 of 1994 on the file of this Court. 2. The lands of the review applicants in Ward No. G Block No.3 and T.S. No.17/7 in Keezhaveli Village, Karaikal Commune and Taluk were acquired for construction of a Stadium to provide playground facilities to the students of schools and colleges at Karaikal by the Union of India, the first respondent herein, through the Land Acquisition Officer - cum - Sub-Collector (Revenue), Karaikal, Pondicherry, the second respondent herein, by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 26.12.1989 after getting approval of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.82 dated 14.12.1989 and after following the procedure to be followed for acquisition of the lands under the said Act. The second respondent, after taking into consideration of the data sale deeds in sales statistics, ...
S. Udhayakumar, Advocate Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ476
ORDER1. Though these three writ petitions relate to the mayoral post of Chennai City Municipal Corporation, in W.P.No.21056 of 2002 the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2002 (T.N. Act 29 of 2002) is challenged, while at issue, in other two writ petitions viz., 19214 and 22365 of 2001, is the eligibility of the present Mayor Mr.M.K.Stalin to contest the Mayoral post elections, which was held during October, 2001. 2. First of all, we deal with W.P.No.21056 of 2002. This is a pro bono publico filed by one Mr.S.Udhayakumar, advocate making the State of Tamil Nadu, Union of India and the Mayor of Chennai City Municipal Corporation as party respondents. Mr.M.K.Stalin was elected as the Mayor of the 3rd respondent-Corporation in the elections held during the month of October, 2001. The Chennai City Municipal Corporation is governed by the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, which is hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 28 of the Act provides...
S. Narayanasamy Reddiar Vs. K.P. Sivaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC420
E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.139 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, who lost before the two courts below is the appellant in this second appeal. 2. On 13.2.1999, R.JAYASIMHA BABU,J., ordered notice regarding admission returnable in six weeks. The respondent has been served and he has entered appearance through Mr.D.Bharathachakravarthy.3. The second appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of counsel for either side. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the following substantial questions of law:-'1. Whether the courts below are right in holding that the pro note is not supported by the consideration when there are no vitiating circumstances and he execution of pro note is proved and when the presumption under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act hold the field?2. Whether in law the courts below right in overlooking the presumption laid down in Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act that a Negotiable Instrument is f...
M. Kaliya Perumal, S/O Muthan Vs. Lakshmi, W/O Kaliyaperumal and Minor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ73
A.K. Rajan, J.1. This appeal is, against the order of maintenance filed by the husband. 2. The first respondent is the wife. Second respondent is the minor daughter. On the perusal of the records, it is seen that the first respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C.10 of 1985 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Ariyalur and that was dismissed by the Magistrate on the ground that H.M.O.P.43 of 1985 was filed by the appellant herein for restitution of conjugal rights against the first respondent herein and that ex parte order was passed on 30.1.1986. Since the decree for restitutiton of conjugal rights was in force, the learned Magistrate did not grant maintenance and hence dismissed the same. Thereafter, O.S.449 of 1986 has been filed for seeking maintenance and the trial Court awarded Rs.150/- as maintenance for the wife and Rs.100/- for the minor daughter. On appeal, the first Appellate Court confirmed the same. Against this, the second appeal has been fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »