Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: delhi rent control act 1958 repealed section 56 power to make rules Court: chennai Page 13 of about 590 results (0.131 seconds)

Sep 20 1990 (HC)

Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Paul M.A. Anthony

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1991(34)ECC152; 1991LC527(Madras); 1991(53)ELT161(Mad)

..... out that the learned sessions judge, while considering the grant of bail to the respondent, had neither taken into account the stringent provision of section 37 of the act, nor the prima facie materials pointing out the involvement of the respondent in such a serious offence, causing incalculable harm to the society at large. the fact that ..... bail.' from a cursory perusal of the section extracted as above, it is patently clear that the grant of bail to a person accused of offences under this act is circumscribed by the existence of certain pre-requisite conditions which alone will give power to the court to grant bail. apart from giving notice to the public ..... captain jagjit singh : [1962]3scr622 , the respondent was a former captain of the indian army and was charged under section 3 and 5 of the official secrets act for conspiracy and passing on official secrets to a foreign agency. the sessions court refused bail but the high court granted bail stating that his case might fall only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1995 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rayala Corporation (P.) Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1995]215ITR883(Mad)

..... commissioner for fresh consideration especially when the assessment made for the year 1962-63 was a best judgment assessment under section 144 of the income-tax act and after considering all the materials available in the records ?' 10. we are not surprised by the revelations in the instant proceeding that the assessee ..... law or such fact that had vitiated its considerations and gone perverse for such reasons. application :also to current assessment years.a. y. :1962-63income tax act 1961 s.253 appeal (tribunal)--additional evidence--reappraisal.ratio & held :the tribunal commits an error in entering into a reappraisal of evidence after taking into consideration ..... officer are completed and the remedy of a statutory appeal before the first appellate authority.application :also to current assessment years.a. y. :1962-63income tax act 1961 s.253 appeal (tribunal)--power of tribunal--limitation.ratio & held :the tribunal can interfere with the orders of the lower authorities, but can do so .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1966 (HC)

Raval and Co. Vs. K.G. Ramachandran and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1967Mad57; (1966)2MLJ63

..... with reference to other special acts and not the madras acts. for instance we have been occupied with the provisions of the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act 1947 (act lvii of 1947) the bihar buildings(lease, rent and eviction) control act iii of 1947, the madhya pradesh act, the delhi and ajmer merwara rent control act, the orissa act, the rajasthan act, the west bengal and mysore acts, in addition to our own ..... . actually, a detailed scrutiny appears to show that those acts cannot merely be lumped together into .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1943 (PC)

Abdula Saheb Vs. Guruvappa and Co.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1944Mad387

..... government encouraged only yarn merchants of long standing and experience. on 16th february 1943, a further order was passed revoking the previous order, known as the madras yarn (dealers) control order, 1943. it repeats a good deal of what was in the earlier order, especially with regard to the definition of a dealer, namely 'a person who sells, ..... a form known as form b. evidently the government desired to control the sale and distribution of yarn and restricted sales to persons who were duly licensed. on ..... yarn in madras. under section 2 (1) (a), defence of india act, the government is empowered to make rules. under rule 81 (2) the yarn control order was made on 1st august 1942. this order prohibited the sale of yarn by persons other than the persons acting on behalf of a cotton spinning mill or persons having a licence in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1966 (HC)

Raval and Co. and anr. Vs. K.G. Ramachandran (Minor) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1966)2MLJ68

..... with reference to other special acts, and not the madras acts. for instance, we have been occupied with the provisions of the bombay rents, hotel and lodging house rates control act, 1947(lvii of 1947), the bihar buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act (iii of 1947), the madhya pradesh act, the delhi and ajmer-merwara rent control act, the orissa act, the rajasthan act, the west bengal and mysore acts, in addition to our own ..... . actually, a detailed scrutiny appears to show that these acts cannot merely be lumped together into .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 1957 (HC)

G. Bashyam Chetty Vs. A. Govindarajulu Chetty and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1957Mad798; (1957)2MLJ272

..... exist in order to give the board jurisdiction as cases can be imagined where clearly the board should and must be intended by the legislature to exercise its control. for instance, a temple may be temporarily non-existent because it may have been washed away by a flood or temporarily submerged or may have been burnt ..... namely, premises no. 37-b, vilakkadi koil street, little conjeeveram, chingleput district, is a temple as defined in section 9(12) of the madras hindu religious endowments act. the following facts emerge out of the evidence adduced by both sides. in 1906, one purushotham venkata ramanuja chettiar purchased a house bearing d. no. 37, vilakkadi koil ..... 1948 and for a declaration that the property constituting the subject-matter of this appeal is a temple within the definition of temple in the madras hindu religious endowments act. the learned district judge set aside the order of the board and declared the property to be a public temple. on appeal, mack, j., confirmed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2000 (HC)

Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2001]248ITR516(Mad); (2001)1MLJ294

..... 1990-91 which was filed on september 12, 1990, revealed that the petitioner company owned immovable properties at new delhi, bombay and madras from which it receives gross rent of rs. 3,08,22,892 per annum and net rent of rs. 1,93,90,225 per annum after all outgoings; it is further stated that the cash income ..... the central board of direct taxes for waiver or reduction of interest under section 220(2a) of the income-tax act, 1961, on the ground that the delay in payment of tax was due to circumstances beyond its control and that payment of interest specified would cause genuine hardship to it. when the said application was pending, the income ..... -tax act was amended vesting the powers under section 220(2a) of the income-tax act, 1961, with the commissioner of income-tax, and, accordingly, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1994 (HC)

Thirupur Exports, Madras Vs. Dy. Regional Director Esic, Madras

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1995)ILLJ39Mad

..... -principal employer and in such a contingency, such immediate employer alone is responsible for payment of the contribution under the esi act. if the petitioner, as a principal employer, is having the supervisory control over stitching of garments entrusted to the immediate employer and is having the right to reject them, then it goes ..... it is said, deposited a sum of rs. 30,000. the petitioner also appeared to have made representations to the director general, employees' state insurance, new delhi in vain. ultimately, he resorted to the present action praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent dated february 5, ..... at no. y/205, plot no. 4/521, fifth avenue, anna nagar, madras - 40, is an establishment covered under the employees' state insurance act, 1948 (act 34 of 1948 for short 'esi act') required to pay contributions, in accordance with the provisions of sec. 40 thereof read with regulation 29 and 31 of the employees' state insurance (general) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 1957 (HC)

G. Bashyam Chetty Vs. A. Govindarajulu Chetty and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1957)2MLJ272

..... exist in order to give the board jurisdiction as cases can be imagined where clearly the board should and must be intended by the legislature to exercise its control. for instance, a temple may be temporarily non-existent because it may have been washed away by a flood or temporarily submerged or may have been burnt ..... namely, premises no. 37-b, vilakkadi koil street, little conjeeveram, chingleput district, is a temple as defined in section 9(12) of the madras hindu religious endowments act. the following facts emerge out of the evidence adduced by both sides. in 1906, one purushotham venkata ramanuja chettiar purchased a house bearing d. no. 37, vilakkadi koil ..... 1948 and for a declaration that the property constituting the subject-matter of this appeal is a temple within the definition of temple in the madras hindu religious endowments act. the learned district judge set aside the order of the board and declared the property to be a public temple. on appeal, mack, j., confirmed the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1916 (PC)

The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Vadavalli Ammal and C. Kesava Pill ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.524

..... the forum will be the same in both cases.7. the only other point that need be mentioned is the suggestion that section 12 of the letters patent controls section 18. i see no force in this contention. the two jurisdictions are separately dealt with in the letters patent and there is no reason for importing into ..... the observations of lord selborne in ellis v. silber (1872) 8 ch. app. 83 : 21 w.r. 346 relating to section 72 of the repealed bankruptcy act were strongly relied on. these observations must not be understood as negativing the suggestion that the ordinary courts should, under no circumstances, entertain a claim where the bankruptcy, court ..... section. the expression all other questions whatsoever' expands rather than curtails the jurisdiction already possessed. reference was made by mr. tirunarayanachariar to section 36 of the new act as pointing to a limit on the powers of the court. that section empowers the insolvency court to summon any person known or suspected to have in his .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //