Chennai Court March 2003 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.
M. Mohammad Aslam and ors. Vs. C.N.A. Gowthaman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad248
ORDERA. Kulasekaran, J. 1. The applicants herein are the legal heirs of the deceased Plaintiff, who has filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale deed 8-4-1995 and supplementary agreement dated 18-5-1996 which was decreed by this Court on 21-3-2001 granting time for deposit of balance consideration by eight weeks. It was also further directed by this Court that the defendant shall not be allowed to withdraw the amount without redeeming the mortgage created in favour of Bank of Baroda, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai. After the death of the Decree-holder-Plaintiff, his legal heirs have filed application in Diary No. 28075 of 2002 seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the sum of Rs. 11,17,000/- deposited to the credit of the above suit, which was rejected. This Application No. 5418 of 2002 is filed by the legal heirs to rescind the contract entered into between the deceased plaintiff and the defendant and to direct the defendant to pay the sum of Rs. 6,18,000/-...
South India Surgical Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-2003
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)685; [2003]263ITR5(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Mr. T. Ravikumar, learned standing counsel for income-tax accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.2. After hearing learned senior counsel, Mr. V. Ramachandran, and learned counsel for the Department in extenso, it is seen that in the impugned order, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), has not considered the first issue, which is reflected in the following words :'1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not totally deleting the addition of Rs. 79,47,330 made to the closing stock accounted for by the appellant in the return and the accompanying documents, though the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has accepted substantially the contention of the appellant. He erred in not restricting the allowance and not excluding the total addition.'3. It is seen that this was a specific ground raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has merely referred to the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›