Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-30-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC665
ORDER1. The legal representatives of the defendant are the appellants. The respondent herein field suit O.S.No.181 of 1976 before the District Munsif of Kulithalai against the appellant's father Vadakali Muthuraja for declaration that the respondent temple had title to the suit property, for possession, for Rs.4,380/- by way of accounting for the income, for future profits and for costs, averring as follows: The suit property is a nanja land of an extent of 73 cents is S.F.No.276/16. Originally it was a dry land. It was comprised in Inam title deed 752 and it was granted to the respondent temple. Except the respondent, nobody else had any manner of right in the said property, that the suit land was Inam land granted to the respondent temple could not either in fact or in law be disputed by the defendants/appellants as the minor inams were notified under Act 30 of 1963 by the Government on 15.2.1967. The Inam Settlement Tahsildar initiated proceedings under Act 30 of 1963 and granted ry...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-12-1998
Reported in : 2000(3)CTC565
ORDERJudgement pronounced by E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above batch of writ Appeals are directed against the common order passed by the Hon'ble single Judge in W.P.Nos. 2475, 3673, 4073, 4074, 6809 of 1997 etc. on 4.8.97. Pending the Writ Appeals, the above writ petitions have been filed and being identical, hence on the orders of the Court, the writ appeals as well as the writ petitions were consolidated and taken up together for final disposal. The appellants/writ petitioners, allottees of shop in the Corporation Fruit Market, Chennai, challenge the impugned action taken by the Corporation of Chennai terminating their licence and calling upon the licencees to vacate and surrender possession of the respective shops in their occupation. As common questions have been raised in all the above matters, it will be sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions. It is also to be pointed out that either the petitioner is an individual or an association representing the individual...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-04-1998
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC671; (1999)IMLJ29
ORDER1. State Lorry Owners' Federation, Tamil Nadu have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Superintending Engineer (N.H) Salem-4 to forbear from taking action any further with hisTender-cum-Auction Notice No.T4/Toll/D0/98 dated 23.6.98 published in The Hindu dated 1.7.1998 with reference to the rights of Toll collection on Motor vehicles passing over the New High Level Bridge across the river Thirumanimutharu at KM 271/2 of NH-7 Bangalore-Salem-Madurai Section near Paramathi Velur.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:-The petitioner-federation is comprised of 100 lorry owners association at various places in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, the permits of which having been issued by the authorities of the various States, including Tamil Nadu. The petitioner Federation has been registered under the Societies Act and its Registration Number is S. 60 of 1997. A new high level bridge across the river Thirumanimutharu at KM 271/2 of NH...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-27-1998
Reported in : [2000]244ITR374(Mad)
ORDER UNDER SECTION 273A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 By its petition under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the asses-see has soug'ht for waiver of interest and penalties in respect of the assessment years 1979-80 to 1983-84. 2. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that there was an action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, consequent to which the assessee had filed returns of income admitting' unaccounted incomes arising to it. Since the assessments for the abovesaid assessment years were all completed after action under Section 132, I see no reason to entertain the present petition filed under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In the circumstances, the petitions are rejected. (Sd.) N. Rangachary,Commissioner of Income-taxT. N.-V, Madras-34.'Hence the above writ petition.15. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the impugned proceedings dated January 28, 1988, on the ground that the returns of income admitting the unaccounted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-02-1998
Reported in : (1998)149CTR(Mad)418; [1999]238ITR466(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the question referred to us, which arises out of the assessment for the assessment year 1975-76 in respect of the assessment of the wealth of State Bank of Travancore Employees' Union is, as to whether the Tribunal was right inholding that the assessee, which is a trade union registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, is liable to wealth-tax in the status of 'individual' under the Wealth-tax Act, having regard to the relevant provisions of the statute including the Indian Trade Unions Act and the authorities and decisions considered by it. 2. The charge to wealth-tax is created under Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which creates a charge for wealth-tax in respect of the net wealth of 'every individual, a Hindu undivided family and the company'. The Tribunal has held that the word 'individual' is capable of taking within its scope an artificial juristic entity like a trade union, which on incorporation under the Trade U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-01-1998
Reported in : [1999]240ITR943(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue has come up with this reference seeking to sustain the penalty of Rs. 4,35,850 imposed by the InspectingAssistant Commissioner on the assessee on the ground that the assessee had concealed income to that extent in its assessment for the assessment year 1965-66. 2. Three questions have been referred at the instance of the Revenue. They are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, having regard to the provisions of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,35,850 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1966-67 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee had not concealed its income and not committed gross or wilful neglect is based on valid and relevant materials and is sustainable in law 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Inspecting As...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-13-1998
Reported in : 1998CriLJ4335
ORDERA. Ramamurthi, J.1. Cri. M.P. No. 1225/98 : Petition for direction to release the petitioner from custody holding that after computing the period of remission passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. No. 279/92, 296/93 and 205/ 94, the petitioner need not serve the sentence.Cri. M.P. No. 1468/98 :- Petition to grant remission to the petitioner in view of the Government order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on various dates.Crl. O.P. 1854/98 :- Petition filed to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms. Nos. 781, 279, 296 and 205 and release the petitioner's husband forthwith on the basis of the remission of sentence and award damages and costs for keeping him inside the prison from 8-9-97 onwards without calculating the remission period in accordance with the Government orders.2. The case of the petitioners in brief in all the applications is as follows:The petitioner in Cri. M.P. No. 1225/98 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two year...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-13-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC318
ORDER1. This judgment shall govern writ petition Nos.9469 and 9470 of 1998 as the parties are common and also the controversy involved. Common petitioner herein is a company registered under the Companies Act which carries its business as steamer agents, stevedores as also clearing and forwarding agents. Though the petitioner carries on its business all over India through its branches, the present controversy relates only to the Port of Madras and the Board of Trustees of Port of Madras is the first respondent herein. Second and third respondents are also more or less in the same business as that of the petitioner and can be conveniently called as the business rivals. It is an undisputed position that the first respondent is a statutory body and is governed by the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (hereinafter called '1963 Act' for the sake of brevity). The whole controversy in the petitions revolves around two berths out of the total six berths at Jawahar Docks in Chennai ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-24-1998
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ1248Mad
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The above Writ Appeal and the writ petitions were taken up together for final disposal.2. Mr. N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appeared for the appellant in W.A.No. 254/1998, W.P.Nos. 479/1998, 8503/1997. Mr. A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel appeared for the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 254/1998 for M/s. Gupta & Ravi. Mr. S.Ramasubramanian, Senior Counsel appeared for Mr. S.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel in W.P.No. 8503/1997, Ms. R.Vaigai appeared for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 4270/1997, 3117/1997 & 3233/1998, Mr. G.Subramanian, Senior Counsel for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co. appeared for the respondents in W.P.No. 4270/1997, 3117/1997 and 3233/ 1998.3. With the consent of counsel appearing for either side, the main Writ Appeal and the Writ Petitions were taken up for disposal.4. The Writ Appeal No.254/1998 has been preferred by Indian Oxygen employees Union represented by its General Secretary being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated January 28, 1998 made in W.P.No. 180...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-21-1998
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC236; (2001)8SCC676; AIR2001SC2861
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In these appeals, in the tight of the contentions raised by the parties, the only question that needs to be answered is, whether Bharathidasan University, Palkalai Perur, Tiruchirappalli in this State of Tamil Nadu, should seek approval of AH India Council for Technical Education to start technicalcourses in the University or to start a Technical Institute to conduct technical courses. For convenience, hereafter we will refer to the said University as 'University' and the All India Council for Technical Education as 'Council'.3. Writ Appeal No.1308 of 1998 is filed by the University and Bharathidasan Institute for Engineering and Technology. Writ Appeal No.1309 of 1998 is filed by a student, who was respondent No.4, impleaded in the Writ Petition No.14558 of 1998 and Writ Appeal No.1326 of 1998 is filed by another student, who was not a party in the writ petition, but after seeking leave from...
Tag this Judgment!