Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Sorted by: recent Court: chennai Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 18 results (0.037 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!

Dec 22 1999 (HC)

Bhel Thuppuravu Thozhilalar Sangam, Bhel Ltd. Vs. Mgmt. of Bhel and or ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-22-1999

Reported in : (2000)ILLJ1533Mad

e. padmanabhan, j.1. in w.p. no. 17938 of 1998, the writ-petitioner bharat heavy electricals ltd., ranipet, prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent deputy chief inspector of factories, vellore, from in any manner continuing with the proceedings no. 3775 of 1998, dated may 19, 1998 and no. 6151 of 1997, dated july 23, 1998.2. w.p. no. 263 of 1989, has been filed , by the bhel thuppuravu thozhilalar sangam, bhel ltd. ranipet, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent namely the management of bhel, ranipet, to implement the notification in g.o. ms. no. 2082, issued by the government of tamil nadu, labour and employment department, dated september 19, 1998 and also to regularise all the existing workmen employed for sweeping and scavenging and to fix them in the regular scales of pay, with effect from october 1, 1998.3. w.p. no. 20325 of 1993 has been filed by the bhel thozhilaga thuppuravu thozhilalar sangam, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the notification of the government of tamil nadu in g.o. ms. no. 2082, labour and employment, dated september 19, 1988, and regularise the services of the members of the petitioner-sangam in the second respondent-management extending to them all benefits and privileges to which they are legitimately entitled from october 1, 1988.4. all the three writ petitions are' consolidated and taken up for hearing. for convenience, the .....

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!

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!

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 30 1999 (HC)

S. Pappa and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-30-1999

Reported in : (1999)3MLJ347

orderp. sathasivam, j.1. the issues raised in all the writ petitions are common in nature. therefore, the same are being disposed of by the following common order. the writ petitions are secondary grade teachers aided schools, secondary grade teachers association, private aided primary middle school managers and teachers association. generally the petitioners have sought for directions by calling for the records relating to the following government orders issued by respondent/government of tamil nadu and consequential order of director of school education:(1) g.o.ms.no. 1524, education, dated 12.11.1990,(2) g.o.ms.no. 1669, education, dated 13.12.1990,(3) g.o.ms.no. 20, education, dated 8.1.1993,(4) g.o.ms.no. 494, education, dated 19.5.1993,(5) g.o.ms.no. 279, education, dated 9.4.1996,(6) g.o.ms.no. 5, education, dated 6.1.1997 and(7) g.o.ms.no. 365, school education, dated 20.8.1997.as stated earlier all the contentions in these writ petitions are identical and common in nature. for the convenience, i shall refer the case of the petitioners in w.p.no. 221 of 1991. the first petitioner in that writ petition, who is a secondary grade teacher, was appointed as secondary grade teacher on 20.4.1990 as approved by the district educational officer in his letter dated 26.5.1990 and is working in sivanthi vinayakar elementary school, mamspuram. likewise, petitioners 2 to 7, working in different aided private management schools, were appointed on 4.6.1990, 2.7.1990, 29.6.1990, 9.7. .....

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!

Jul 26 1999 (HC)

Review Applicant: Mrs. Farida Shaukath Vs. Unit Trust of India, Madras ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-26-1999

Reported in : 1999(2)CTC736

order1. the above review application is directed against the order dated 26.11.1998, made in w.p.no. 20884 of 1992, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed in the following terms:'the petitioner seeks for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to sell the property at 75, poes garden, madras-86 to the petitioner.'it appears that the petitioner is the owner of door no. 76 poes garden, madras and the house at door no. 75, poes garden, madras- 86, is admittedly, owned by the first respondent, who invited sealed offers for disposing of the suit property, to which, the petitioner and the second respondent, made their offers. in spite of some negotiations between the first respondent and the second respondent in disposing the said property, the sale could not be finalised by the first respondent not satisfied with the terms of negotiations or the result thereon, the petitioner has approached this court for the above relief.i am of considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke article 226 of the constitution of india for the relief as prayed for in the writ petition, as the same is very much contractual in nature. hence the writ petition is dismissed.'2. mr.k. chandru, learned senior counsel for the review applicant contends that even though the review applicant/writ petitioner could not unfortunately be represented on 26.1.1998. the writ petition was disposed of only on the basis of the submission that even though the writ petitioner was invited .....

Tag this Judgment!


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