Chennai Court November 1994 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.
Sudarsan Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR245(Mad)
1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order under section 263 was a proper and valid order and that the jurisdiction under section 263 has been validly invoked (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer could not have been deemed to have considered the levy of interest under section 215 and dropped the same at the time of the original assessment (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer had not considered the question of charging interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act and, therefore, the order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue un...
Micronova Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1994
Reported in: 1994(48)ECC213
K.A. Swani, C J.1. At the stage of admission, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent has put in appearance. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.2. The appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.10.1994 passed in W.P.No.18149 of 1994. In the writ petition, the appellant sought for quashing the order dated 11.8.1994 of the 2nd respondent in SB/Stay Order No. 187/94 and to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal No. E/SB/ 5342/ 94/MAS on merits. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition holding that the petitioner/ appellant has not only availed the time granted by the Tribunal, but has chosen to move the Court at the end of the period, apparently with deliberate intention to avoid compliance with the order by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. The learned single Judge has further held that on merits, there is no case made out for dispensing with the pre-deposit.3. The petitioner/appellant preferre...
Dr. Thangavel Padayachi (Died) and ors. Vs. J. Ramu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ110
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The Legal Representatives of the judgment-debtor in the appeal A.S. No. 437 of 1979, have come forward with this application for amendment of the decree in O.S. No. 345 of 1973 of Sub Court, Ariyalur, contending as follows:The suit filed by the respondent against Thangavel Padayachi, was decreed. But the respondent filed the appeal in respect of certain amounts disallowed by the trial court. The said appeal was dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent took out an execution in E.P. No. 2 of 1981 for realising a sum of Rs. 58,882 against the decree passed for a sum of Rs. 31,620 with proportionate costs. In the judgment, the rest of the claim of the plaintiff has been dismissed with costs. The office, by mistake, has drafted the decree for a higher sum. Hence the application for amendment of the decree.2. The respondent has filed a counter contending briefly as follows: The respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,309 towards the ...
A.N. Shanmugam and anr. Vs. A.V. Ramanathan Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ601
Ramamoorthy, J.1. The appellants' father Natesa Gurukkal filed a suit, O.S. No. 267 of 1979, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,956 on the basis of a promissory note dated 24.3.1965, executed by defendant, Ramanatha Rao. The plaint was presented on 2.1.1979. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant is a debtor and claimed exemption under the various Debt Relief Acts. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the suit presented on 2.1.1979 was in time.2. The defendant contended, that he had completely discharged the amount due under the promissory note, that he was not a debtor within the meaning of those Debt Relief Acts and that the plaint presented on 2.1.1979 was barred by limitation.3. Learned District Munsif, by judgment and decree dated 26.3.1981 decreed the suit, holding that the suit was in time, that the plea of discharge had not been established, that the defendant had not proved he was not a debtor and the learned District Munsif did not believe Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5 filed by the de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›