Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-02-1996
Reported in : AIR1996Mad364
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday, the 6th, Thursday, the 7th and Friday, the 9th day of December, 1995 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 10-10-95 and made herein and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein and the records relevant to the prayer aforesaid and comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Rajeswaran, Advocate for the respondents, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order:--The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of declaration the entire paragraph 9.00 and paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule Part I of the Schedule to the Revised Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity formulated by the 1st respondent in B.P.Ms. (FB) No. 61 dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-05-1996
Reported in : [1997]224ITR9(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 185 and 129 of 1981, dt. 2nd November, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions in the case of two of the assessees, for the asst. yr. 1975-76, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : Tax Case No. 1258/1982 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the price paid by the assessee for the acquisition of five vehicles from Seethapathy Transports (P) Ltd., at a consideration which is admittedly lower than the true market value, is not a benefit within the meaning of s. 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,600 on the ground that the provisions of s. 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 are not applicable in the assessee's case ?' Tax Case No. 1259/1982 : '1. Whether, on the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-12-1996
Reported in : (1997)137CTR(Mad)629; [1998]229ITR682(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J.1. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raise an interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), r/w s. 143(1A) of the Act. WP No. 7751 of 1994, relates to the levy of additional income-tax for the asst. yr. 1991-92 to the tune of Rs. 2,36,096. WP No. 7752 of 1994 relates to the levy of additional income-tax to the tune of Rs. 1,86,492 for the asst. yr. 1992-93. In both the cases identical question is raised for consideration. 2. Only a few more facts have to be noticed before plunging into the provisions of law and the interpretation of the same. For the year 1991-92 the petitioner returned a loss of Rs. 48,09,661 under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, the assessing authority disallowed the sum of Rs. 22,41,328 and a further sum of Rs. 39,788 under s. 43B of the Act. The assessing authority intimated to the petitioner that the loss was determined at Rs. 25,28,545. He proceeded to levy ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-19-1996
Reported in : 1996(1)CTC436; (1996)IMLJ557
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit claim contending that the defendant who is his brother, borrowed 10,000 dollars from him while they were at Malaysia and repaid 3100 dollars on three different dates and even though he has filed a suit in Malaysia in Civil Action No. 1816 of 1978 in the Sessions Court at Kuala-lumpur and obtained a decree on account of the default of appearance by the defendant, he has filed the suit at Devakottai on the original cause of action since the defendant had executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount borrowed, which could not be executed in India on account of the fact that the decree passed against the defendant was on account of the default of appearance by the defendant.3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit is not maintainable at Devakottai, the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 15 of 1976 and Act 17 of 1976 and the calculation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-09-1996
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ509Mad
ORDER1. W.P. No. 5069 of 1997 is for mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to enforce the mandatory provisions of the Trade Unions Act with reference to the constitution of the third respondent and to see that the Rules and Bye-laws of the third respondent conform to the Model Constitution as provided for by the Rules framed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the office bearers of the third respondent as per the Trade Unions Act. 2. W.P. No. 12043 of 1989 is also by the same person for quashing the order of the first respondent in his B-3/11122/88 dated June 20, 1989. 3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows : The petitioner is a member of the third respondent-union. The 3rd respondent is registered, from 1961. Chapter 36 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the rules 3610 to 3618 therein specify the circumstances for recognition of a Union by the Railways. Third respondent-union was recognised by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-20-1996
Reported in : [1998]229ITR335(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J. 1. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raise the same question in respect of the two assessment years, namely, 1983-84 and 1984-85. W.P. No. 2073 of 1987 seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated December 15, 1986, and to direct the second respondent to grant relief to the petitioner under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1983-84. Similarly, W.P. No. 2072 of 1987 seeks to quash the order dated December 15, 1986, and to grant relief to the petitioner under section 80-O of the Act for the assessment year 1984-85. The common order dated December 15, 1986, is cryptic and is as follows : 'I am directed to refer to your petition dated November 26, 1986, personally presented by Shri R. S. Manian to the Member (Central Board of Direct Taxes) on your behalf on the above subject and to say that, as already explained to your representative, in view of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-15-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Mad296; 1997(2)CTC617
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24-7-1991 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.2214 of 1991. Hence the petitioner therein has come up in appeal.2. The petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 18-10-1990 bearing No. 60608/B4/90, directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty not on the sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- mentioned as consideration amount in the sale deed, but Oil the market value, which, according to the second respondent, was in the order of Rs. 7,06,312.50. Therefore, additional stamp duty of Rs. 56,077/- should be paid, in addition to Rs. 35,750/- already paid. 3. Learned single Judge has taken a view that the market value of the property, as on the date of the execution of the sale deed, has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the stamp duty payable on the document of conveyance. Therefore, the order passed by the second respondent does not call for interference. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-19-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Mad41
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. These writ appealsand the writ petitions relate to a commonquestion as to whether the appellants and thewrit petitioners are entitled to claim certainconcessional electricity tariff rate applicableto certain power intensive factories and unitsand for that purpose they seek to quashcertain Government orders denying suchconcessions issued under the Tamil NaduRevision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1979 (Act I of 1979)(hereinafter referred to as Act 1 of 1979). Toappreciate the grounds on which the relief issought for, it is essential that we should knowthe facts of the case.2. The appellants in W.A Nos. 2 to 10 of 1988 were the writ petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2211 of 1987,1146 of 1982,4948 of 1985, 5426 of 1982, 5427 of 1982, 5428 of 1982, 1147 of 1982, 4949 of 1985 and 7186 of 1985 respectively. They are engaged in the production of rough synthetic gems which are subsequently cut and polished by skilled manual labour into synthetic gems of variou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-01-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Mad135; 1996(2)CTC620; I(1997)DMC285
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The Husbandagainst the dismissal of this H.M.O.P.1007 of 1988 on the file of Principal Family Court, Madras, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for a decree of nullity by annulling the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent on 8-3-1987 at Madras is the appellant in the above appeal before this Court.2. The case of the appellant is briefly stated hereunder:--The appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) got married on 8-3-1987 at Madras as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage has not been consummated till the date of filing of the present petition. It is averred that based on the bio-data and horoscope of the respondent showing the date of birth as 15-2-1963 sent in the month of September, 1986 by respondent's father to the appellant's father seeking alliance for his daughter, the appellant gave his consent for the marriage. The respondent was evasive to produce her educational certificates to get employment t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-09-1996
Reported in : AIR1997Mad78; (1996)IIMLJ220
ORDER1. By an order dated 22-11-1995, in W.M.P. Nos. 25014 and 25015 of 1995, the petitioner was permitted to amend the prayer in the respective writ petitions, which runs thus:'Heard Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam, for the petitioners and Mr. T. Srinivasamoorthy, for the respondents. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the above petitions for amendment. I am satisfied that in the interest of justice, the amendment as prayed for should be ordered. Hence, both these petitions are ordered.'2. The amended prayer in W. P. No, 11133 of 1995 reads as follows:'To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ, calling for the records relating to the telegram of the first respondent bearing No. 87 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to adroit the Petitioner (Roll No. 23818) to the M.B.B.S. Course in the Armed Forces Medical College, Pune-411 040, for the 1995 Session.'3. The amended prayer in W. P. No....
Tag this Judgment!