Chennai Court October 1994 Judgments
C.G. Shanmugham Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR207(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The above writ petition has been field for the following relief : 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners prays that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other form of writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records relating to proceedings No. TRO/OS/661/76- 77/90-91 dated September 24, 1990 of the first respondent culminating in an order of confirmation of sale under Reference No. TRO/OS/661/76- 77/90-91 dated December 3, 1990 of the first respondent and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this court may deem fit and proper .....' 2. The proceedings under challenge are those of the first respondent-Tax Recovery Officer, outstation charge, Bombay, and is the proclamation of sale issued under rule 38 and rule 52(2) of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proclamation of sale purports to bring an immovable property, viz., Flat No. 43, 9th floor, in Prabhat Supr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Sea Foods Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1994
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Mad)79; [1995]215ITR176(Mad)
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. Four questions of law have been referred to this court to be answered. 2. The first one reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of rule 19A(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire liability consisting of secured loans, unsecured loans, current liabilities and provision for taxation should not be deducted and the entire gross value of the assets should be taken as capital for the purpose of grant of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax, Act 1961 ?' 3. As far as this is concerned it is brought to the notice of this court that an identical question has been answered in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) . We hold that the decision rendered in the said reference would apply to this case on all fours. 4. Similarly, the fourth question of law has been set out as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in t...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Powder Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise, Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1994
Reported in: 1995(75)ELT51(Mad)
ORDER1. Even when the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions came up before this Court having regard to the nature of the relief sought for and the stage of the proceedings before the authorities below, I considered it appropriate to dispose of the main writ petitions themselves. Learned counsel on either side had no objection to the said course. Consequently, the said main writ petitions themselves are taken up for hearing. 2. These writ petitions relate to one and the same subject matter though raising overlapping issues and pertaining to different stage of the proceedings. Hence they are dealt with together. 3. Having regard to the stage of the proceedings before the authorities below, I consider it inappropriate to refer to the various claims on the merits of the main dispute itself. Suffice it to notice that the dispute centers round a conflicting claim as to whether the commodity in question is zinc dust or zinc powder for applying the proper rate of duty under the Central Excise Act. It a...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Shanmugasundaram and anr. Vs. Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ201
Govardhan, J.1. The defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the daughter and sons of Kumarasami Gounder to whom the suit property belonged. Kumarasami Gounder who was enjoying the properties as head of the joint family died intestate on 29.6.1967. Even after celebrating the marriage of the plaintiff, Kumarasami Gounder was detaining the plaintiff, her husband and their children withhim. His wife predeceased Kumarasami Gounder. The first defendant was away from the village on account of his employment. But yet, the plaintiff and the second defendant who were residing in the family house, used to give a share of the yield due to the first defendant and he was also enjoying the same. The second defendant had helped the plaintiff in taking 6 acres of land in Pandali village of Kollegal taluk on lease. The second defendant was giving share from the yield of the family property to the plaintiff till 1986 Va...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaiyan and ors. Vs. Chellappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ390
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. The two revisions C.R.P. Nos. 128 of 1994 and 129 of 1994 are directed against the decree and judgment rendered in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 1991 dated 24.6.1993 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District, confirming the order passed in I.A. Nos. 151 and 152 of 1989 both dated 26.6.1991 by the learned Additional District Munsif Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District.2. The matrix of the case on hand as gathered from the case records may be stated in brief as follows: The first revision petitioner is the second defendant in the suit and the others are the legal representatives of the first and third defendants, in the suit O.S. No. 500 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Kuzhithurai which was filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of delivery of possession of the suit property and so on. As the defendants had not entered their appearance, it was decided ex parte on 17.11.198...
Tag this Judgment!Sarangapani and Others Vs. Varadhan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad188
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. In the light of the arguments advanced, the short question mainly involved in this First Appeal by defendants 1 to 9, against the preliminary decree for partition of 4/14th share of the 'plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 4 herein, granted in O.S. No. 26 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Villupuram, is Whether one Kiliyam-bal ammal alias Kamalammal, who died in 1972, was the wife of Venugopal Pillai, who died in 1979 and whether the said respondents1 to 4 herein are the legitimate children of the said Venugopal Pillai and Kiliyambalammal. Admittedly the tenth defendant, who died pending suit was the wife of the said Ventt-gopal Pillai and the appellants are the children of the said Venugopal Pillai through her. The trial Court, accepting the plea of the plaintiffs and negativing the plea of the defendants 1 to 10 granted the preliminary decree prayed for in respect of suit 'A' schedule properties (lands and houses), itemsI to 3 of suit 'E' schedule properties (out-st...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Karthikeya Touring Thirai Arangam Represented by Its Proprietor, N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ245
ORDERRaju, J.1. These two writ petitions may be dealt with together since they involve overlapping issues.2. The petitioner in these writ petitions is the proprietor of a touring cinema theatre carrying on business under the name and style of 'Sri Karthikeya Touring Thirai Arangam' at Surampatti Village, Erode Taluk, Periyar District. The salient facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the present writ petitions alone need be mentioned and there is no need for adverting to all the elaborate details furnished in the affidavits. The fact remains that in the year 1987 while the petitioner was running his touring cinema on a second term licence, the same was stopped on the ground that his touring that his touring cinema lies within the prohibited distance of 1609 metres of the nearest Srinivasa permanent theatre. At that stage, the petitioner approached the State Government seeking for exemption from the applicability of Rule 14(2) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules,...
Tag this Judgment!R. Thillai Villalan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ622
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J. 1. Heard the petitioner at length. The petitioner in this petition has sought for the following prayer;.to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, directing the first respondent herein to take immediate and suitable steps to issue orders refraining the second respondent herein with respondents 3 and 4 herein from entering the border of Tamil Nadu or travel into the different parts or towns in Tamil Nadu till such period or extended period the injunction orders obtained by various political parties and persons before this Hon'ble Court restraining, publishing, marketing and making public by media or any other mode or method of the book titled 'T.N. Seshan - An Intimate Story' by the second respondent with the help of respondents 3 and 4, continue to be in force, to avoid unnecessary violence and creating law and order problem in the State of Tamil Nadu, and pass such other or further orders as this Hon'b...
Tag this Judgment!V. Anandmull JaIn (indl.) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1994
Reported in: (1996)54TTJ(Mad)50
ORDERS. KANNAN, A. M. :Giving rise, as they do, to certain common issues, these appeals by the assessees were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. The aforesaid assessees are members of one and the same group doing business in money-lending, vehicle financing, sale of fertilizers and hulling of paddy. This group was subjected to search and seizure operations on 31st July, 1986. After the search the group came forward with an aggregate disclosure of Rs. 49.99 lakhs, with the rider that the said amount may be spread over the members of the group in a certain fashion. It is a matter of record that the quantum matter was settled on the said lines.3. To give effect to the said settlement, the assessees of this group, it is common ground, filed revised returns of income, which were all accepted pursuant to the said settlement. In the course of the reassessment proceedings, penalty proceedings were initiated under s. 271(1)(c) and s. 273 of the IT Act, 1961. And the impugne...
Tag this Judgment!Munian Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2165
Janarthanam, J. 1. The appellant was the accused in S.C. No. 60 of 1985 on the file of Court of Session, North Arcot Division, Vellore. He was found guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction that the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to. 3. Brief facts are : (a) the accused is a resident of Semmiamagalam village, situate within the limits of Porur Police Station. P.W. 1 is his wife. Their marriage took place some ten years prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 7-11-1984. Three off-springs came into existence to them and of them second and third off-spring had ephemeral existence and died subsequently. The first off-spring is a female, name...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »