9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner-trust constituted in terms of the deed of trust dated October 15, 1959, is a religious and charitable trust founded by Rajam Chettiar. An extent of 90.74 acres was endowed for the trust which consists of both nanjai and punjai lands in Peraiyur and Mannargudi. According to the petitioner, the income from the lands are being utilised for the performance of religious and charitable trust, as provided in the deed of trust. The-petitioner trust claims that in terms of section 4(b) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, the entire income from the agricultural lands are exempted as the same is utilised for charitable and religious purposes. The petitioner further states that the petitioner trust is not subjected to tax or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1979 and remanded the matter to the first respondent for fresh disposal according to law. The operative portion of the order passed by Y. Venkatachalam J. reads thus : "In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh disposal according to law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his cause within six months from the date of receipt of the records from this court. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs." After the said order, it is represented that the revision was adjourned from time to time and ultimately it was posted on December 9, 1996, for hearing. It is stated that neither the petitioner nor counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 985, would definitely mean the order dated September 10, 1985, no longer survives and it is deemed to have never been made. When this court in exercise of power conferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India had quashed or set aside the proceedings of the first respondent dated September 10, 1985, made in R. P. No. 427 of 1979, the said order stands quashed and it is never deemed to have been made and it is no longer on file and it is no longer in existence. Such being the legal position, the first respondent would not at all have been justified in disposing of the revision petition by merely stating that the order dated September 10, 1985, is confirmed. The confirmation of the order dated September 10, 1985, would arise only if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
