Advanced Search Results
Bansilal Fomra and ors. Vs. the Thadava Co-operative Agricultural and ...
Chennai
Sep-20-1974
Contract
(1976)1MLJ39
Mr. P.V. Subramaniam
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The appellants in both the appeals are the plaintiffs respectively in O.S. Nos. 139 of 1966 and 3527 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the City Civil Judge, Madras....
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMeghraj Vs. Jesraj Kasturjee and anr.
Chennai
Mar-22-1974
Limitation
Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5
AIR1975Mad137
P.V. Subramoniam, Adv.
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. An application under Order 9, Rule 9, C. P. C. was filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 330 of 1966 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, to...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMuthu Pillai Vs. Seruvakkal
Chennai
Oct-06-1987
PropertyCivil
(1988)2MLJ143
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. These two revisions are directed against the common order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, in C.M.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1986 dismissing the appeals filed by the revision-petitioner.2. The facts...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Balkishen Goenka Vs. Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer for Sale ...
Chennai
Jul-05-1971
Sales Tax
[1971]28STC572(Mad)
P.V. Subramaniam, Adv.
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner purchased lands bearing survey numbers given in paragraph 2 of his affidavit, situate in Payyankidigadi village, Orathnad Taluk, Thanjavur District. He purchased them from one S.K.R.M. Ranga-nathan Chettiar under a...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskSri Mahalakshmi Finance Corpn. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Jul-28-1986
Direct Taxation
(1986)19ITD494(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').2. The assessee is a partnership firm. For the previous year ended 30-6-1980...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskDollar Apparels Vs. Income Tax Officer
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai
Feb-15-2005
Direct Taxation
(2005)95TTJ(Chennai)615
1. In these appeals filed by the assessee and the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue where the issues are common, hence, these are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskRupchand Fomra and ors.
Chennai
Feb-12-1964
Motor Vehicles
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 2(1), 2(19), 2(25), 38(1), 42(1) and 112
AIR1964Mad449; 1964CriLJ437
P.V. Subramaniam, Adv.;B. Sriramulu, Adv. for ;Public Prosecutor
ORDERKunhamed Kutti, J.1. All these revision cases are by one or the other member of the Fomora family or firm and substantially relate to the same question. These petitions can, therefore, be disposed of by a...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskP.V.S. Vencatachellum Vs. P.V.S. Kabalamurthy Pillai
Chennai
May-03-1954
FamilyProperty
Hindu Law; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 10 to 17; Mohomedan law; Indian Companies Act; Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1946 - Sections 7; Constitution of India - Article 19 and 19(1)
AIR1955Mad350
K.S. Ramaratnam, Adv.
Ramaswami, J.1. Suit is for a declaration that the plaintiff has not been and is not a bare tenant as from month to month under the defendant of the buildings and premises described in the plaint...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskVishweshwaradass Gokuldass Vs. the Government of Madras
Chennai
Aug-31-1961
Sales Tax
[1962]13STC113(Mad)
P.V. Subramaniam, Adv.
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. The petitioners, Vishweshwardass Gokuldass are dealers in metals and mineral ores at Madras. They returned the gross turnover of the business for the year 1955-56 in the sum of Rs. 4,12,106-13-8. They claimed the...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMaddala Thathiah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Owning the M. and S.M. Rly.
Chennai
Aug-09-1956
Contract
Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 10 and 31
AIR1957Mad82
V. Thyagarajan and ;P.V. Subramaniam, Advs.
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Ramaswami Gounder, J., dismissing the appellant's suit in C.S. No. 380 of 1949, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,063-7-3 from the Dominion...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »