Chennai Court April 2004 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.
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)197CTR(Mad)485; [2005]275ITR638(Mad)
A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. On April 4, 1984, the respondent had made a donation of Rs. 4,00,000 to the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Peraringar Anna Trust 'AIADMK PAT' for short) towards the corpus of the trust. The Assessing Officer, finding from the accounts of the trust, that the trust had utilised the amount for setting off the earlier year's losses and for repayment of loans taken from AIADMK, that the certificate exempting donations under Section 80G of the Act was valid only up to March 31, 1982, and the trust itself was seen to have engaged in business, held that the provisions of the Gift-tax Act would be attracted to the donation made by the respondent/assessee. The Assessing Officer levied gift-tax on Rs. 4,00,000 subject to exemption under Section 5(1)(v) of the Gift-tax Act. Questioning the said order, the trust filed an appeal but in vain. But, however, it succeeded before the Appellate Tribunal. The Deputy Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras, is now before t...
R. Kaaruppan Vs. Baljit Singh Sethi, Secretary General, the National R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)2MLJ518
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. The appellant filed W.P. No.36000/2003 praying the Court to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order in the nature of a writ, directing the respondents to accept the appellant's entry for the skeet event at the National Clay Pigeon Shooting Championship commencing from 12th December, 2003. A learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the National Rifle Association of India is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and consequently, no direction in the form of mandamus can be issued as prayed for by the appellant. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the said order of the learned single Judge.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the appellant has stated that the respondents as usual did not intimate to him about the fixtures and that he came to know only from his friends and that further, immediately on coming to know about the event, he sent ...
G. Chandra Vs. Marimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC508; (2004)3MLJ7
ORDERS. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J. 1. The landlady is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed against the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing the R.C.A. No. 92 of 1997 filed by the tenant against the eviction ordered by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of own use and occupation in respect of the petition residential premises.2. The landlady filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for 8 months from December, 1991 to July, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month and that the petition premises is required bona fide for own use and occupation with her family members and stating that she is residing in the rented building.3. The Rent Control Original Petition was opposed by the respondent/tenant by filing counter, in which it is stated that even during lifetime of the landlady's father Rajagopal Naidu, he was owning other buildings in which he was residing in one of such buildings and...
Namath Watch Co., by Its Proprietor Kalimullah Vs. G. Vijayakumar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ1
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The landlords, not satisfied by the fixation of fair rent by the courts below, has filed this revision petition. The tenant, who failed in his attempt, to question the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller, successfully in R.C.A. No. 422/95 and also failed to resist the R.C.A.1157/96 filed by the landlords, is the revision petitioner in both the cases. This order shall dispose of the above three C.R. Ps. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner(s) and respondent(s) concerned in the above C.R. Ps. are described as landlords and tenant.2. The landlords are the owner of a building bearing Door No. 37/38, situated in Irusappa Maistry Street, Rattan Bazaar Road, Madras, which measures an area of 1091 sq.ft. The tenant is in occupation of the said premises, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.350/-. The landlords, considering the location of the building and the advantages enjoyed by the building commercially, felt that the rent at present being paid by the t...
Koppaiyan Vs. K. Ramaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2004
Reported in: (2004)3MLJ267
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J. 1. The tenant, who suffered an eviction order in the hands of the courts below concurrently, is the revision petitioner.2. The respondent herein as landlord had filed a petition before the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 12/1997, for the eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner, on the grounds that the tenant had committed willful default in payment of rents, from June 1981 to May 1996, totaling a sum of Rs. 11,700/-, that he had willfully denied the title of the petitioner, that the premises is required for demolition and reconstruction, to have personal occupation.3. The respondent in R.C.O.P.12/1997 viz., the tenant/revision petitioner opposed the application contending, that he is not the tenant, in respect of T.S. No. 2317, that he is the tenant only in respect of the ground alone in T.S. No. 2316/2 and not the superstructure and in this view, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction, that he had not denied the t...
National Elementary School, Pundarikulam North Bank, Rep by Its Corres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC712; (2004)2MLJ523
ORDERM. Thanikachalam, J.1. The tenant, who was successful in resisting the eviction petition before the Rent Controller, unable to sustain the same when the same was challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondent, as landlord has filed the petition for eviction of the tenant on the grounds that the tenant had committed willful default in payment of rent; that he had used the building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased out; that the tenant had committed not only nuisance but also committed acts of waste and that the petition mentioned premises is required for the purpose of immediate demolition and reconstruction, which is bona fide. 3. As per the averments in the petition, the wilful default, said to have been committed by the tenant, is from August 1990 till the date of filing of the petition as well as the non-deposit of the amount, in time as ordered in R.C.O.P No. 5/1991, which is a petition filed by the t...
Syed Mnueer Ahmed Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Senior Inte ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2004
Reported in: 2004(3)CTC209; 2004(95)ECC420
ORDERS. Ashok Kumar, J.1. This petition has been filed to quash the summons issued by the respondent in DRI F.No. VIII/48/58/2003-DRI dated 13.1.2004.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner was arrested on 11.10.2003 by the respondent while he was about to travel to Kualaumpur along with his wife and he was intercepted and foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 29.39 lakhs was seized from them and a case was registered.2A. During the course of seizure proceedings, the petitioner was enquired under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and after enquiry, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. During the enquiry, M/s Otel International, Chennai by undervaluing the same and the petitioner has stated that he has been importing furniture in the name of that two such consignments were lying at the Chennai Harbour pending clearance. He further stated that he used to carry foreign exchange to pay to the foreign suppliers towards the under-invoicing of imports of fur...
In Re: R. Kaaruppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2004
Reported in: 2004CriLJ4284
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The Great Poet Thiruvalluvar said in Thirukural:(Vernacular matter omitted)The meaning of this Kural is this:'It would be folly not to fear of what is to be feared.The truly wise will fear of what is to be feared.'We are reminded of this Kural while dealing with this suo motu contempt petition.2. Mr. Karuppan, former President of Madras High Court Advocates Association, who has put in more than 25 years of practice as an advocate, thinking that he is involving in heroic and courageous acts, has challenged the majesty of law, thereby landing himself in the trouble of facing the contempt proceedings before the Full Bench of this Court.3. This has got a chequered history which is as follows :'(a) Karuppan, an Advocate of this Court, as a party in-person, claiming himself as a best Rifle shooter, filed various writ petitions and the contempt petition against the Chennai Rifle Club and its office bearers as well as the Government seeking for the direction to the Go...
Asm Shipping Ltd. Vs. Lyubarets Viktor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-2004
Reported in: (2005)ILLJ235Mad
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. On various dates, the vessel in question (the same vessel) came to be arrested under orders of arrest of this Court, originally at the instance of the plaintiffs in the suit and subsequently at the instance of the crew members, who were allowed to intervene. The vessel, under orders of arrest of this Court, was detained in the Fort of Tuticorin. By filing Application Nos. 627 to 630/2004, the order passed ex parte arresting the vessel, was sought to be rescinded by the operator In India for the vessel in question. Considering the urgency shown, the vessel, which was in the Tuticorin Port at that time pursuant to the orders of arrest, was allowed to leave the Tuticorin Port on its onward journey to the Port of Visakapattanarn for unloading the cargo already loaded in it at Tuticorin, with a further direction that the vessel, on reaching the port at Visakapattanarn, would continue to remain arrested under orders of this Court by order dated February 17, 2004...
S. Ramachandran, S/O. Subba Reddy Vs. G. Subbaraj, S/O. K.S. Gurusamy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-2004
Reported in: AIR2004Mad510; (2004)3MLJ53
ORDERR. Banumathi, J.1. Review Application No.101 of 2003 : This application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., read with Sec. 114 C.P.C., to review the Judgment of this Court dated 01.08.2003 passed in A.S.No.788 of 1997. The Review Petitioner-S.Ramachandran is the Plaintiff. The Respondents 1 to 4 are the Appellants / Defendants in the suit in O.S.No.1001 of 1990 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The Review Petitioner / Plaintiff and the First Respondent / D-1 are cousins. Relating to the family properties, the Review Petitioner / Plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.1001 of 1990 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for partition and separate possession of his half share, including the properties standing in the name of their ancestors and the properties standing in the name of the Respondents / Defendants. The suit ended in compromise. The said compromise was challenged by the Defendants 1 to 4 / Appellants in A.S.No.788 of 1997. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »