Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)

A.V.M.Charities vs The Commissioner on 21 December, 2023

6. The above issue has come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramakrishnan vs. Corporation of Madras reported in AIR 1976 Mad 128 wherein it was held that a serving of a consolidated notice containing the information as to vacancy and unletting coupled with the claim of remission would satisfy the requirement of Section 112 of the Act and it may not be open to reject the petitioner's claim only on the premise that an independent notice under Section 105(3) of the Act intimating the vacancy and unletting was not issued prior to the claim for remission. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M Shaffiq - Full Document

K.Rani vs V.S.Financiers on 22 July, 2008

265-A.RADHAKRISHNAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CITY CIRCLE, MADRAS; 1991 LW(CRL) 475  N.LAKSHMANAN VS. THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, TIRUTTANI, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MR.M.KUPPUSWAMY AND 2000 CRI.L.J.624-M/S.DANDY KNIT GARMETS AND ANOTHER VS. M/S.SUBIKSHA SPINNERS(P) LTD. He would further submit that with regard to allowing the petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. the pass book of the complainant/respondent relating to the period from 11.6.1990 to 27.4.2001 is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the issue in this case.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1