Chennai Court March 2004 Judgments
Additional Director of Income Tax Vs. N. Selvarajoulu
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)85TTJ(Chennai)56
1. These six appeals by the Department are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-III, Madras, dt. 17th Oct., 1995. The relevant assessment years involved are from 1987-88 to 1992-93. The assessment was framed under Section 16(3) of the WT Act, 1957.2. In all these appeals of the Department, there is only a common issue involved. Hence, they were clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the same of brevity and convenience.2.1 The issue is whether the respondent-assessee trust is eligible for exemption under Section 5(1) of the WT Act. The grounds as emerging out of the grounds 2.1 to 2.4 are reproduced below : 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to levy wealth-tax only with reference to the property forming part of the business of the trust and exclude other asset for levy of wealth-tax. 2.2 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee itself has not claimed exemption under Section 11 in view of the fact that the charity was m...
Tag this Judgment!Kemalamuthu Chatram Rep. by N.K. Easwaramurthi Vs. S.R.S. Sankarasubra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ606
M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This second appeal has been brought forth by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession and other reliefs from the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, made in A.S.No.140/90, which arose from the judgment of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, made in O.S.No.7/89.The plaintiff Kemalamuthu Charities, Tirunelveli, represented by its Manager, sought for the relief of recovery of possession of two items of immovable properties mentioned in Schedules I and II to the plaint along with damages for the acts done by the defendants and also the damages for the use and occupation of the property on the following allegations:2 The properties mentioned in the plaint Schedules belonged to the plaintiff. The Tamil Nadu Act 18/60 is not applicable to the suit properties. The first defendant took the I Schedule of property on lease in the year 1960. There were proceedings between the plaintiff and the first defendant, wherein it...
Tag this Judgment!Better Label Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director, Dil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(173)ELT12(Mad); (2004)3MLJ64
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J. 1. Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.2302 of 1999 challenging the order of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 2.2.1998, by which the petitioner companies were imposed a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. The said writ petition was presented before the Registry on 28.12.1998. However, it was admitted only on 15.2.1999. In the meanwhile, the petitioner made a declaration to avail the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme invoking Section 95(i)(c) of the Finance (No.2)Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which reads as follows.'Section 95: Scheme not to apply in certain cases- The provisions of the scheme shall not apply- (i).... (ii)in respect of tax arrear under any indirect tax enactment- (a)... (b)... (c)in a case where no appear or reference or writ petition is admitted or pending before any appellate authority or the High Court or the Supreme Court or no application for revisio...
Tag this Judgment!E. Thangasamy Raja, S/O. T.M.K. Ettayappan Vs. the Executive Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad441
P.K. Misra, J. 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuing writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the proceedings of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.149/2000 dated 27.5.2992 and directing the respondent to renew the licence in respect of the petitioner's market situated at Ward No.VI, Door Nos.175,176,177 at Ettayapuram Selection Grade Town Panchayat for conducting a weekly market on every Saturday.2. Certain facts which are no longer in dispute and which are based on the observations made by the High Court in several previous litigations have to be noticed. The petitioner and his ancestors have been running a private weekly market at the place indicated by him for more than 40 years. The petitioner had applied for renewal of licence for the period starting from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.1998. The said application was rejected by the respondent by order dated 27.2.1997. The petitioner filed W.P.No.4131 of 1997. Learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 2.9.1997 allowe...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohamed Muthu and ors. Vs. Mrs. Habeeba Beebi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(2)CTC721; (2004)3MLJ84
K. Govindarajan, J.1. Defendants 1 to 8 who succeeded before the trial Court and suffered decree in A.S.No. 277/1987, filed the above Appeal.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.527/1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore for partition of the suit properties into 4 equal shares and allotment of three shares to the plaintiff and for a direction to the appellants herein4o render true and proper accounts regarding the rents realised from the suit 'A' schedule property for 3 years prior to the filing of the suit and directing them to pay 3/4th share due to the plaintiff and also for mesne profit.3. It is not in dispute that that the suit property originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiff, Sara Bibi, who executed a settlement deed on 5.11.1952 in favour of her daughter who is the elder sister of the plaintiff, Fathima Bibi. Under the said document, she was given life estate and the vested remainder was given to her husband and unspecified heirs. Stating that the restrictio...
Tag this Judgment!Nedungadi Bank Ltd., MaIn Branch Rep. by Its Assistant General Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: [2005]124CompCas157(Mad); (2004)3MLJ339
ORDERK. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order dated 6.6.2002 passed in I.A.Nos.665/2000 and 666/2000 in I.A.No.564/2000 in O.S. No. 1053/20000 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.2. The revision petitioners are Nedungadi Bank Limited (Now taken over by Punjab National Bank) and they have filed an application in I.A.No.666/2000 to impaled them as party to the suit and also filed another application in I.A.No.665/2000 to erase the order of attachment before Judgment, which has been passed in I.A.No.564/2000. Both the petitions came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, they have filed these two Civil Revision Petitions.3. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and the respondents.4. The Revision Petitioner would contend that respondents 2 and 3 have hypothecated their goods to the Bank and in respect of the same property, the first respondent, namely, M/S. Pondy Metal Rolling Mills Private Limited has filed a su...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramadoss and R. Lavanya Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(5)CTC724; (2004)3MLJ280
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. C.M.A.No.896/2004 is preferred against the order passed by the 3rd respondent in No.6061/N3/2004 dated February 2004. C.M.A.No.897/2004 is preferred against the order passed by the 3rd respondent in No.5867/N3/2004 dated February 2004. 2.In both the orders, the 3rd respondent has rejected the appeals preferred by the appellants on the ground that the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi are dated 18.11.2003, but the appeals were preferred beyond the period of two months as provided under Sections 47A of the Indian Stamps Act 1899. 3.We heard Mr.A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Government Advocate for the respondents and with the consent, the appeals are taken up for hearing.4. Mr.A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the orders of the 3rd respondent are not sustainable as the said officer has taken into account the date of the order for the purpose of deciding the question whet...
Tag this Judgment!Jagathambigal Nagar Co-operative House Site Society and ors. Vs. State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad400
1. The petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent-Commissioner to hold an enquiry under Section 34of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for brevity 'the Act') and to consequently sell the house sites at the same rate fixed in 1984 to the 135 members of the first petitioner-society, who are owning the superstructures, occupying and living in the said temple lands.2.1 According to the petitioners, Arulmighu Thiruvalleeswarar Thirukkoil, Padi, Chennai owns lands of an extent of 19.40 Acres in Survey Nos. 271, 303/1 to 4, 364/1 to 3 near the temple in Padi, Chennai. The said temple is under the supervision and control of the third respondent-Executive Officer, and under the management of the trustees represented by the fourth respondent-Hereditary and Managing Trustee.2.2 The fourth respondent-Hereditary and Managing Trustee sent a proposal to sell the lands of the temple to the occupants of the same and the said proposal was also a...
Tag this Judgment!Devaraju Padayachi Vs. Sivasankara Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC699; (2004)4MLJ604
ORDERAR. Ramalingam, J.1. The civil revision petition has been filed by one Devaraju Padayachi being the decree holder in O.S.No. 791 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore against the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore in E.A.No. 768 of 1999 in E.P.No. 8 of 1998 in O.S.No. 791 of 1995.2. The impugned order is to the effect that the entire decree debt has been discharged by payment of Rs. 15,000 by the judgment debtor viz., Sivasankara Padayachi and consequent issue of receipt dated 25.6.1999 by the decree holder.3. Aggrieved against such order, the decree holder filed this revision petition on the ground that there was no necessity for out of Court settlement and there was no payment of Rs. 15,000 by the judgment debtor to the decree holder on 25.6.1999 and there was no such receipt issued by the decree holder in favour of the judgment debtor and the said receipt for Rs. 15,000 dated 25.6.1999 itself should be a forged one at the instance...
Tag this Judgment!Senthamarai and anr. Vs. Sivakumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-2004
Reported in: 2004(4)CTC735
ORDERAR. Ramalingam, J.1. Heard both sides. This civil revision petition has been filed against the Order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Gingee in an unnumbered E.A. of 2001 in E.P.No.89 of 1997 in O.S.No.595 of 1989 by the petitioners.2. The petitioners appear to have filed the said unnumbered E.A. under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC as if it is a claim petition and that the same hag been returned by the Principal District Munsif, Gingee by saying that how such a petition is maintainable in. respect of charged properties and when there is no attachment by Court by giving ten days time for compliance.3. Aggrieved against such return, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.4. The fact remains that first item in lot 1 and second item in lot 2 of the charge decree have been brought for Court auction and those properties have bean purchased by one V .Rajendran, a third party for a total sum of Rs.74,700 and he has also deposited the entire amount into Court and the sal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »