Chennai Court March 2003 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. K. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: (2004)187CTR(Mad)654
K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. The question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the order under Section 263 passed by the CIT?'The assessment year is 1986-87.2. In respect of the assessment proceedings for the above assessment year, the assessee declared the cost of construction of a cinema theatre viz., 'Mahalakshmi Palace' at Rs. 10,53,000. The value declared by the assessee was based on the registered valuer's report. The AO accepted the value of the theatre as declared by the assessee and completed the assessment. Later on, the CIT on the premise that on enquiry he came to know that the assessee had availed a loan of Rs. 47 lakhs from Jayalakshmi Leasing Company declaring the value of the theatre at Rs. 27,40,000, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, set aside the order of assessment and directed the AO to make fresh assessment after verification and enquiry. The asses...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Marry Joseph
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2003
Reported in: [2004]268ITR217(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessment year is 1983-84. The question referred at the instance of the Revenue is,'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the capital gains arising on the sale of the Quilon property is not assessable in the hands of the assessee but only in the hands of her four daughters ?' The Quilon property is the one referred to in the will of the deceased father of the assessee, the late S. A. Pereira, who, in his will dated September 11, 1979, dealt with that property thus : 'Regarding my house property at Quilon in survey No. 11005 in Uliyakoil Village, Quilon Taluk, Quilon District, Kerala State, I bequeath the same to my daughter. The income or sale proceeds of the said property have to be utilised for the education and marriage of my grand children. The balance, if any, can be taken by my daughter.' 2. The testator was also the owner of two businesses, both styled as Colombo Saree Works...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Sumber Mitra Jaya Vs. the National Highways Authority of India (M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Mad221; (2003)2MLJ69
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the above two writ appeals, viz. W.A. No. 1026 and 1027 of 2002. Both these writ appeals emanate from a common judgment, disposing of W.P. Nos. 23360 and 23361 of 2001. In W.P. No. 23360 of 2001, the petitioner/appellant herein had challenged an order dated 31-10-2001, debarring the appellant from participating in any tender process, including the re-invitation of bids in view of the non-adherence to conditions of contract by the appellant. In short, the appellant was informed that it was 'black-listed'. In W.P. No. 23361 of 2001, the appellant had challenged the order dated 22-10-2001 whereby, the bidding process in respect of the project 4-laning of km.163.00 to km.180.00 of Bangalore-Salem-Madurai Section through Thoppur Ghat of NH-7 State of Tamil Nadu under the contract package No. NS-25(TN) was cancelled. The following facts will help to understand the controversy involved:2. The appellant is an Indonesian company, primarily enga...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ganesan Vs. Subbiah Dharmanidhi, Through Its Managing Trustee, D. G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ819
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. The revision petitioner / tenant has preferred the present revision petition aggrieved against the fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tuticorin in RCA No. 60 of 1992 dated 05.07.2002 reversing the fair and decretal order of the Rent Controller, Tuticorin passed in RCOP No. 72 of 1991 dated 22.04.1992.2. The case in brief for disposal of the revision petition is as follows:- The first respondent / landlord filed a petition under section 10(2)((ii)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Rent Control Act'), seeking eviction of the tenants from the property. The schedule mentioned property belongs to the 1st respondent / landlord and the revision petitioner was a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.40/= payable on the 5th of every succeeding English calendar month. The building is about 60 years old and constructed of coral stones and lime. The building is in a bad condit...
Tag this Judgment!R. Gandhi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3942
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. The petitioner who is the detenu himself, seeks release by quashing the order of detention dated 13.08.2002.2. A perusal of the detention order discloses that on 3.7.2002, the detenu who is a holder of Indian Passport, arrived at Anna International Airport, Chennai, from Singapore. After completing immigration formalities, the detenu collected two check-in baggages and also brought one hand baggage. He approached Customs Table No. 16 along with the above three pieces of baggage and declared to the Superintendent of Customs that he was in possession of 20 Cellular phones and other electronic goods valued at Rs.60,000/-. Not being satisfied with the declaration and on suspicion that he was in possession of goods much in excess of declared quantity and value, he was checked by the Air Intelligence Unit for detailed examination. In the presence of two independent witnesses, the baggage was checked. This resulted in recovery of 100 numbers of Panasonic cell phone...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2004CriLJ875
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The petitioner, a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life in Crime No. 80 of 1996 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code on the file of Porur Police Station, Dharmapuri District has filed the above writ petition, questioning the G.O.Ms. No. 683 Home (Prisons-5) Department dated 05.08.2002 of the Government of Tamil Nadu prohibiting the use of tobacco in any form in prisons by the prisoners.2. On direction, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.3. According to the petitioner, during the pre-conviction stage and after the conviction when lodged at Central Prison, Vellore, he had been allowed to smoke beedies purchased at his own costs. The prisoners are allowed to smoke within the cells and dormitories. But, suddenly, on and after first week of January,2003, the prisoners inside the prison are not allowed to purchase beedies and prevented from smoking. On enquiry, he came to know that the Government of Tamil Nad...
Tag this Judgment!V. Kasi Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vigil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3592
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard.2. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.7.1996, made in C.C. No. 75 of 1991 of the learned I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.3. The accused was working as a Revenue Inspector in Firka Taluk, Harur, during January to March, 1990. Concededly, the accused is a public servant. 4. The accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), with reference to an alleged occurrence of having demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.100/- from one Thiru. K. Kannan (P.W.1) as gratification other than legal remuneration for processing the application dated 13.02.1990 (Ex.P5) of P.W.1 for issuing 'Small Farmer Certificate' for obtaining electricity supply at free of cost.5.1. The events leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that P.W...
Tag this Judgment!Vanajakshi Ammal and Gajendra Naidu Vs. Raniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: (2003)2MLJ157
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. Defendants in the suit are the appellants and the plaintiff is the respondent herein. She instituted the suit for cancellation and to set aside the document dated 27.7.1977 or in the alternative, for declaration that the document should be treated as a simple mortgage and not a sale deed, for a direction to the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property in case the plaintiff is not found to be in possession of the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.2. A reading of the prayers in the plaint clearly shows that many reliefs, which are alternative or contradictory to each other, are claimed by the plaintiff in the suit and the case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner of the suit property measuring 1.70 acres in Survey No. 287, Chokkanallur village and she has sunk a well at the cost of Rs.10,000/- by raising loans. She has stated...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Palanidoss and 5 ors. Vs. S. Arumugham and 11 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)CTC10
ORDERPrabha Sridevan, J.1. The suit is for declaration, injunction, delivery and possession.2. The plaint averments are as follows:One Subbammal, W/o. Appavoo Chettiar dedicated the suit properties for performance of 'pradosha kattalai', 'thiruvilakku' and 'vasthram during the 'dwajarohanan', for the first plaintiff-temple, and for uthsavam and uchikala pooja, for the sixth plaintiff (originally the 12th defendant). Executors were appointed under the said Will. They erected a silasasanam in 'A' Schedule property. The properties have been absolutely dedicated for performance of the obligations mentioned in the Will. The executors were in management of the specific endowment and after their demise Kothandaramaswamy Chettiar, the first defendant in C.S.No.107 of 1970 was in management of the properties and also performing the 'pradosha uthsavam'. The plaintiffs were not in management of the properties. The family members of Kothandaramaswamy Chettiar filed C.S.No.107 of 1970 .for partitio...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ayyasammy Vs. Mohanasundari,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2003
Reported in: III(2003)ACC64; 2003ACJ2072; 2003(3)CTC321; (2003)2MLJ49
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The question that arises is whether the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the death of a person in a road accident is or is not part of the estate of the deceased. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the C.R.P. are that the petitioner had engaged an advocate in the proceedings for enhancement and apportionment of compensation when the lands belonging to the petitioner were acquired by the State. It is stated that the reference Court has ordered the enhancement of compensation amount awarded, and the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not fully paid the entire amount of compensation ordered by the court by the advocate. Therefore the petitioner initiated proceedings against the advocate in the Bar Council by way of disciplinary proceedings and also initiated criminal proceedings against him. The advocate denied all the charges levelled against him, however, before the proceedings before the Bar ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »