Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 18 results (0.026 seconds)

Sep 24 1999 (HC)

TuticorIn Vegetable Marketing Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-24-1999

Reported in : [2000]243ITR202(Mad)

..... genuine cases of hardship.8. the rate of two per cent, per mensem on the difference of the advance tax not paid is also arbitrary and not based on any rationale or principle. even in respect of default in the payment of an ascertained tax the interest required to be paid is only 1 1/2 per cent, per mensem and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1999 (HC)

TuticorIn Vegetable Marketing Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-24-1999

Reported in : (2000)158CTR(Mad)79

..... genuine case of hardship.(v) the rate of 2 per cent per mensem on the difference of the advance tax not paid is also arbitrary and not based on any rationale or principle. even in respect of default in the payment of an ascertained tax the interest required to be paid is only 1-1/2 per cent per mensem and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1999 (HC)

New Vijay Agency Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-15-1999

Reported in : [2001]74ITD504(Mad)

..... ) and, is a rule of evidence. presumptions which are rebuttable in nature available to be drawn. the initial burden of discharging the onus of rebuttal is on the assessee. the rationale behind this view is that the basic facts are within the special knowledge of the assessee. section 106 of the indian evidence act, 1872, gives statutory recognition to this universally .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1999 (HC)

Nagai District Farmers Welfare and Protection Association, Represented ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-03-1999

Reported in : (1999)2MLJ322

orderk. govindarajan, j.1. the petitioner-association aggrieved against the order passed by the 1st respondent in g.o.ms.no. 292, co-operation, food and consumer protection (b1) department, dated 21.12.1998 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 21.12.1998, has filed the above writ petition.2. according to the petitioner, its members are mainly engaged in the cultivation of paddy for their livelihood. the paddy so produced by them was being sold to the paddy dealers without any restriction.3. under the impugned orders, the 1st respondent government introduced the monopoly system of procurement in cauvery delta area, which has been described specifically in the said order. according to the said order, the paddy in those areas shall be purchased only by the tamil nadu civil supplies corporation ltd., on behalf of the 1st respondent, and there shall be no purchase of paddy/rice from the whole sale dealer in the above areas. with respect to the price, according to the said order, for fine variety, it is fixed at rs. 440 per quintal and for grade 'a' variety it is fixed at rs. 470 per quintal. besides the above, a sum of rs. 50 as cash incentive per quintal of paddy has been decided to be paid to the farmers who deliver paddy to the government through the district. purchase centres in the monopoly procurement areas. the said order came into force immediately, i.e., with effect from 21.12.1998 and the same will be in force upto and inclusive of 30th june, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 1999 (HC)

T.A. Naufal Rizwan (Minor) Rep by His Father S. Abubacker Vs. the Stat ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-28-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)CTC253

order1. in all these writ petitions, the revised norms of rural reservation in under challenge. based on the recommendation of a high level committee that because of the locational advantage with regard to schools, coaching for entrance examination etc., rural students were in a disadvantageous position, and that in order to help the bright students of rural areas, a reservation of 15% of seats in professional courses to rural students subject to usual communal reservation was suggested. the said recommendation was accepted and the government issued orders in g.o.ms. no. 261, higher education department dated 12.5.1997, reserving 15% of the seats in engineering colleges and in g.o. ms. no. 600. health and family welfare department dated 5.12.1997, in medical and dental colleges to rural students. the government orders were upheld by the division bench of this court in navarasam matriculation higher secondary - p.t.a. v. state, : (1998)iiimlj504 .2. while the matter stood thus, on the basis of certain complaints from representatives of the public, parent-teacher associations, journalists and writings in editorial columns and reports, the government had to reconsider the norms adopted for the allotment of 15% seats. the main objection was that self financing matriculation schools situated in rural areas adjoining the urban areas are the maximum beneficiaries earmarked for this category. consequently, the real rural students to whom the benefit was intended are deprived of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 1999 (HC)

Dr. R. Murali Vs. Dr. R. Kamalakkannan and Three Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-01-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)CTC675; (2000)1MLJ1

orderjudgement pronounced by s.s. subramani, j.1. parties herein will be referred according to their ranks in the writ petitions. 2. all these writ appeals are placed before this larger bench under the following circumstances: writ petitioners filed w.p.nos. 6314 to 6317 and 6743 of 1999 for the issuance of order of direction declaring that the reservation of 50% of seats for non-service candidates in the selection for higher speciality courses more particularly d.m. (rhematology, nephrology, cardiology) for the year 1999-2000 course in tamil nadu government medical colleges by respondents/appellants as illegal, unconstitutional null and void and consequently to set aside the selection of candidates made on that basis and select respective petitions for the above course and for consequential reliefs. 3. in w.p. nos.6314 and 6315 of 1999, petitioners wanted to join dm (cardiology). writ petitioner in w.p. 6316 of 1999 applied for the course of dm (nephrology) and writ petitioner in w.p. no 6317 of 1999 wanted to join higher speciality course in dm (rhomatology), writ petitioner in w.p. no.6743 of 1999 sought admission for the course m.ch. (surgical gastro enterology). 4. in the month of february, 1999, second respondent advertised for selection of candidates to the higher speciality courses tamil nadu government medical colleges. the eligibility criteria was that the candidates should be an indian citizen and should have a post-graduate degree of tamil nadu dr.m.g.r. medical .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1999 (HC)

Vijay Hemant Finance and Estates Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-19-1999

Reported in : [1999]238ITR282(Mad)

n.v. balasubramanian, j.1. the writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the first respondent dated march 4, 1996, and to direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to rectify the defects pointed out in the letter of the first respondent dated december 21, 1995, found in the declaration in form no. 15h filed by the petitioner along with the annual return in form no. 27a, dated may 24, 1995, under section 194a of the income-tax act, 1961, for the assessment year 1994-95.2. the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are, the first respondent by his order passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1a) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the act'), dated march 4, 1996, treated the writ petitioner as an 'assessee in default' in respect of a sum of rs. 29,029 being the tax that ought to have been deducted at source under section 194a of the act on the interest paid by the petitioner to various other persons who have made certain amount of fixed deposits with the petitioner. the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not deduct the tax on the ground that the persons on whose behalf the deduction ought to have been made had filed declarations in form no. 15h requesting that no tax need be deducted on the interest paid to them. however, the first respondent found that declarations were defective in various respects and consequently held that the declarations were not valid in law and in this view of the matter, the first .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1999 (HC)

Lkp Merchant Financing Ltd., 608a, Spencer Plaza, 769 Annasalai, Chenn ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-06-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)CTC525; (2000)1MLJ24

order1. the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw and cancel the condition contained in para 4(a) of the notice inviting tender dated 13.9.1999and issue a fresh notice inviting tender for the purpose of allotting money exchange counters at chennai which shall not include the said condition.2. the petitioners are carrying on business as money changers under valid licences given by the reserve bank of india at various places including chennai. till recently, according to the petitioner, the money changers/authorised dealers are permitted to operate money exchange counters at airports by private treaty. for the first time, the airport authority of india, chennai, the 1st respondents invited sealed tenders in the prescribed form from reputed authorised money exchange agencies, nationalised and foreign bank for setting up and operation of money exchange counters at 6 locations in anna international terminal and one location in the departure area of kdt. in the tender notice itself it is stated that the parties who are participating in the tender should possess minimum experience of 5 years of operating money exchange counter at ports/railways/airports. under clause 5 of the said notice it is also stated that the tender documents will be given only if the tenders fulfil the eligibility criteria mentioned therein.3. the petitioners having aggrieved by clause 4(a) and 5 of the said notice, have filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 1999 (HC)

Abdullah Kadher Batcha Vs. the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) Custo ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-10-1999

Reported in : 1999(3)CTC235; 2000(67)ECC55

order1. it appears that the petitioner has reliably understood that the respondents are taking certain proceedings against him, with regard to an alleged act of smuggling said to have taken place on 14.5.1999 for non-declaration of certain goods brought by him from singapore, by singapore airlines, under the provisions of conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'cofeposa').2. the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said proceedings initiated by the respondents against the petitioner is illegal and invalid, inasmuch as the very market value of the goods, which is the subject matter of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, are estimated to the tune of rs. 10,82,250, without taking into account a sum of rs.1,00,000 towards the value of the goods declared by him. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the value of the goods shall be only a sum of rs. 9, 82,250, if the value of the goods declared is taken into consideration and consequently, the provisions of cofeposa are not attracted. the learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the legal and fundamental rights of the petitioner is seriously threatened due to the non-application of mind by the respondents, with regard to the allege estimation of the value of the goods and hence, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from taking any proceedings against the petitioner under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 1999 (HC)

S. Rajendran Vs. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary to Governme ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-15-1999

Reported in : 2000(1)CTC4; 2000(67)ECC499

orderjudgement pronounced by n.k. jain, j.1. this writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.4.1999 in w.p.no.4993 of 1999 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition seeking to quash order dated 19.2.1999 on the ground of delay.2. the necessary facts for the disposal of this writ appeal as alleged, are that the petitioner s.rajendran is the proprietor of m/s.sterling exchange corporation. he is also the managing director of m/s.goodluck forex (i) ltd.a computer with data particulars and cash of rs.16 lakhs were seized on a search conducted in the office of the petitioner on 22.12.1997. the petitioner was arrested on 23.2.1998 and remanded to judicial custody. it is alleged that he filed w.p.no.1909 of 1998, for quashing the proceedings dated 18.6.1998 whereunder the time limit for retaining the documents seized, was extended. another w.p.no.1910 of 1999 was filed for the return of seized currency of rs.16 lakhs. it is also alleged that w.p.no.6184 of 1999 was filed against the show cause notice issued as to why the seized money and amounts blocked in various accounts in a sum of rs.38 lakhs and odd should not be confiscated. the petitioner was ordered to be detained under cofeposa act, 1974, vide order dated 19.2.1999, against which this writ petition has been filed.3. respondents 1 and 2 have filed detailed counter denying the allegations, as alleged. it is submitted that before execution of the detention order, the petitioner cannot ask for .....

Tag this Judgment!


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