Chennai Court March 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Premier Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1993
Reported in: [1993]204ITR829(Mad)
Somasundaram, J.1. This is a petition filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law for the decision of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the amount of capital subsidy received by the assessee would not go to reduce the cost of assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation and investment allowance ?' 2. Though the above question is covered by the decision in Srinivas Industries v. CIT : [1991]188ITR22(Mad) , the Supreme Court has granted special leave to the assessee against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on an identical question, which decision is in CIT v. Janak Steel Tubes (Pvt.) Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 536. Similarly, in a special leave petition filed by the Department against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High C...
A. Mohan Vs. Dr. Vivekanandan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Mad)196; [1994]206ITR634(Mad); (1993)IIMLJ258
Somasundaram, J.1. As the parties in these two writ petitions and the points involved are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. On December 29, 1977, the first respondent executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioner settling his half share in an extent of 17.34 acres in S. Nos. 101/1, 101/2, 101/3 and 103/1 in Anuppur village. The value of the half share, settled by the first respondent in favour of the petitioner, is given in the settlement deed dated December 29, 1977, as Rs. 41,000 and the value of the entire property measuring 17.34 acres is given as Rs. 80,700. Again, on January 7, 1978, the first respondent executed another settlement deed in favour of the petitioner settling his half share in an extent of 11.80 acres in S. No. 98/1 in Anuppur village and S. No. 45/2 in Velalapatti village. In the settlement deed dated January 7, 1978, the value of the half share settled in favour of the petitioner is given as Rs. 31,000 and the value of the entir...
Nallaya Gounder and Another Vs. P. Ramaswami Gounder and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Mad275
ORDERThangamani, J. 1. Appeal against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in O.S. No. 124 of 1981 on his file.2. The appellants are defendants 4-and 5 in the trial Court. Respondents-plaintiffs instituted the suit for specific performance against the appellants and three others alleging that on 27-8-1980 defendants 1 to 3 entered into Ex. A1 sale areement with them undertaking to sell the suit properties for Rs. 52,500/-. they received a portion of the sale price of Rs. 20,000/- as advance and agreed to receive the balance of Rs. 32,500/- within a period of 5 1/2 months from that date and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. On 16-11-1980 which corresponds the 1st of Tamil month Karthigai the plaintiffs were put in possession of the properties as agreed and since then they are in actual enjoyment of them. Appellants were aware of Ex.A-1 agreement as well as handing over possession of the properties to the plaintiffs by defendants 1 to 3. Since...
Y. Venkanna Chowdry (Died) and Another Vs. G. Lakshmidevamma and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: AIR1994Mad140
ORDERMishra, J.1. The Managing Partner(judgment-debtor) in a proceeding for rendition of accounts, has preferred this appeal against the judgment by Padmanabhan, J. dated 13-6-1979.2. Originally the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a partnership on 5-11-1956 under the name and style of Sambhu Films, all partners agreeing to share the profit and loss of the business. The capital of the firm of Rs. 2,20,000/- was divided into 220 shares of Rs. 1,000/- each and the first defendant/appellant was appointed as the Managing Partner under the deed. The Firm produced two motion pictures, one in Telugu and another in Tamil. Particularly relying upon two clauses of the partnership deed clauses (9) and (10) and alleging violation thereof, the plaintiffs stated in the plaint as follows :--'The partners of the aforesaid firm constituted the 1st defendant Venkanna Chowdary as the Managing Partner and he was entrusted with the Management of the firm and all its affairs. Clauses 9 and 10 of t...
Quaid-e-millath Teachers Training Institute Vs. State of Tamil Nadu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: AIR1993Mad253
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. In W.P. No. 9611 of 1992, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents to permit 80 students of the petitioner-Institute who completed their First Year course in Teachers Education in April, 1992 to write the Government Examination for Diploma in Teacher Training Education to be held on 27-7-1992, publish the results and to issue the diplomas and certificates to the students of the petitioner-Institute through the petitioner-Institute.2. The petitioner applied on 28-5-1986 for recognition. The application was not considered by the authorities and the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Cour! in W.P.No. 4277 of 1989 seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to permit 160 students of the petitioner-Institute to appear for and write the Government Examinations. A single Judge of this Court gave a direction during the pendency of the writ petition by order dated 4-4-1990 in W.M.P. No. 5340 of 1990 permitting 40 students who ...
Mrs. Bhawari Devi Acha Vs. Mrs. Anjugam Raj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ110
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit is the applicant herein. She has filed the above application for interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from in any manner dealing with the plaint schedule property by sale or otherwise pending disposal of the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the present suit for the following reliefs:(a) To execute and register a sale deed conveying the property described in the schedule to the plaint in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the agreement dated 13.7.1990 and in default directing an officer of the court to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff;(b) To deliver possession of the suit schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff;(c) To pay damages of Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff;(d) To pay the cost of this suit to the plaintiff; and(e) To grant such further or other relief to the plaintiff as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.3. Notice was ordered in this application by this Court at the...
A.J. Doss Vs. Saroja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ365
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order in R.C.A. No. 638 of 1991 dated 21.9.1992 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras, confirming the order in R.C.O.P. No. 1973 of 1986 dated 5.9.1989 on the file of Rent Controller (XI Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras.2. Short facts are: The respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 1973 of 1986 on the file of XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, against the petitioner for eviction, on the ground of wilful default and owners occupation, alleged rent was Rs. 500 p.m. and there was arrears from September, 1985 to May, 1986. The petitioner resisted the petition. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11 (4) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in M.P. No. 63 of 1987, claiming arrears of rent as aforesaid and after contest by the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 12,000 towards arrears of rent ...
P. Venu Alias Venugopal Vs. Jeya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ434
ORDERPratap Singh, J.1. These revision petitions are directed against the orders in C.M.A. Nos. 20 and 21 of 1992 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in which the learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the appeals and thereby set aside the orders passed by him in I.A. Nos. 652 and 653 of 1992 in O.S. No. 154 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Valliyur.2. Short facts are: The revision petitioner has filed O.S. No. 1 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Tirunelveli which was later transferred to the Court of District Munsif, Valliyur and re-numbered as O.S. No. 154 of 1992, for dissolution of partnership firm, carried on at Door No. 1, Periyar Bus Stand Buildings, Madurai Road, Tirunelveli Junction and at Stall at 2, platform in the Periyar Bus Stand buildings, Tirunelveli junction, for rendering real accounts of the partnership firm, for appointment of receiver and for interest on the misappropriated funds and for costs, against the respondents herein. He had...
C. Stephenson Roobasingh, Manager and Correspondent, Ebenezer Teachers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1993
Reported in: (1993)2MLJ311
Srinivasan, J.1. A 'Introduction: In these writ petitions, the Constitutional validity of G.O.Ms. No. 536, Education (UI) Department, dated 17.5.1989 and G.O.Ms. No. 661, Education (UI) Department, dated 12.6.1991 is challenged mainly on the ground that they violate the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and they offend the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By the two Government Orders the State Government introduced certain amendment to the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977 approved in G.O.Ms. No. 2080, Education, dated 14.9.1977. Before referring to the provisions thereof and the contentions of the parties, a brief peep into the history is necessary. [After tracing the history of the impugned G. Os. and the compelling circumstances under which they were issued, His Lordship proceeded -Ed.] 2. By the said Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 536) the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Reco...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Suguna Mahendran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR684(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These petitions are filed under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, seeking a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law, which, according to the petitioner, arises in T.C.P. Nos. 833, 837 and 841 of 1991, relating to the assessment year 1982-83 in each case : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the first appellate authority holding that the Assessing Officer should not have based the valuation on the event which occurred in 1986 and ignored the Board's Circular No. 326 (see [1982] 134 ITR 167), dated February 6, 1982 ?' 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Board's Circular No. 326 (see [1982] 134 ITR 167), dated February 6, 1982, is only directory and in addition to that it only lays down the guidelines, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have completely rested its decision as to income capitalisation only on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »