Chennai Court December 1994 Judgments
Athiappa Gounder and anr. Vs. A. Mohan and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: II(1995)DMC340
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 4 are the appellants in this appeal. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 2, 3 and 5. Respondents 2 to 4 viz., defendants 2, 3 and 5 were given up since they remained ex parte.2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit properties, which are admittedly joint family properties having been allotted to the share of his father (1st defendant) in a partition between him, his brother and their father. The plaintiff's case is as follows:-- The plaintiff is the undivided son of the 1st defendant. His mother Rajammal/3rd defendant was married to the 1st defendant about 25 years prior to the suit according to the custom obtaining in the community to which they belong. Two sons were born to the 1st defendant through the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff is one of the sons. The other son, who was elder to the plaintiff, died a few months after his birth.3. The 1st defendant married a second wife. Th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sengodan Vs. K. Dharmalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ336
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 156 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal, is the appellant in the above appeal. He died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have come on record. The plaintiff as also defendants 1 to 5, are the children of one Kali Gounder, who died on 4.7.1981. The 6th defendant is the son of the 1st defendant and was a minor at the date on which he was impleaded. He is represented by a court guardian. The plaintiff and 1st defendant are brothers and defendants 2, 3 and 4 are sisters. The 5th defendant is their step sister of Kaliappa through his second wife. The plaintiff s mother is said to have passed away, quite early and the 5th defendant's mother, Kali Gounder's second wife and her three other children as also a daughter of the plaintiff are stated to have died in a car accident on 26.5.1967.2. The appellant/ plaintiff laid the suit for partition and award of separate possession of a 7/18th share in pl...
Tag this Judgment!Athiappa Gounder and anr. Vs. A. Mohan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ357
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 4 are the appellants in this appeal. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are defendants 2, 3 and 5. Respondents 2 to 4 viz., defendants 2, 3 and 5 were given up since they remained exparte.2. The 1st respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit properties, which are admittedly joint family properties having been allotted to the share of his father (1st defendant) in a partition between him, his brother and their father. The plaintiff's case is as follows: The plaintiff is the undivided son of the 1st defendant. His mother Rajammal/3rd defendant was married to the Ist defendant about 25 years prior to the suit according to the custom obtaining in the community to which they belong. Two sons were born to the 1st defendant through the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff is one of the sons. The other son, who was elder to the plaintiff, died a few months after his birth.3. The 1st defendant married a second wife. The p...
Tag this Judgment!Suo Motu Contempt Application No. 426 of 1994 Vs. Mrs. Manonmani Muthu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ375
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is a suo motu contempt proceeding initiated by us. The respondent herein filed W.P. No. l 1238 of 1994 questioning the validity of 32 sale deeds registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Madras-40 and praying for quashing them. The only respondent in that writ petition was the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Madras. The parties to the sale deeds were not impleaded. The writ petition was dismissed in limine by single Judge of this Court by order dated 21.7.1994. The respondent filed Writ Appeal No. 1438 of 1994 against the said order. In the memorandum of grounds, she had made certain allegations, which were found to be objectionable by the Registry and she was called upon to delete those grounds. While refusing to do so, she filed a separate statement, containing some more scurrilous allegations against the Chief Justice of this Court. The last part of the statement reads as follows:My words are only the reflections for the unlawful orders of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemists and Druggists Association Buil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1994
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Mad)114
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In pursuance of the order passed by this Court in TCP Nos. 53, 54 and 55 of 1979, the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1974-75 :1. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income from property No. 1, Memorial Hall Road, and Nos. 511 and 512, Mint Street, Madras, should not be assessed in the hands of the assessee ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunals finding that the assessee was not the owner of the properties is based on valid and relevant materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?'2. The assessee is a trust constituted under a deed dt. 14th Aug., 1951, under which five trustees were appointed to manage and administer certain properties. The properties were to be held for the benefit of the Chemists and Druggists Association and any surplus incom...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramakrishna Engineering Industries (Coi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR723(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 48,175 representing damages paid by way of interest and storage charges for breach of contract for purchase of a capital asset should be allowed as an expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessee wanted to set up a project for manufacturing chemical process and pumps in the medium scale sector. In that connection on August 6, 1973, the assessee placed an order with the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi, for the manufacture and supply of a horizontal boring machine. Later, the assessee cancelled the order placed by it. But, the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited insisted on damages by way of in...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Swamiji Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]215ITR728(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in deciding that there was no justification for retaining the addition of Rs. 1,07,118 and directing the deletion of the same ?' 2. The assessee is a manufacturer of cotton yarn. In the books of account relevant for the assessment year 1975-76, it had credited the sales tax account with a sum of Rs. 2,25,416 and debited the same with an amount of Rs. 1,18,298 being the amount remitted to the Sales Tax Department during the year. The Income-tax Officer added the difference of Rs. 1, 07,118 on the finding that the assessee had maintained its accounts on cash basis of accounting in respect of sales tax matters. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. Aggrieved with that order, the assessee filed a second appeal befor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Navratanmull Chordia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1994
Reported in: [1996]217ITR221(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 314 to 321 of 1979, 322 to 324 of 1979, 409 to 411 of 1979, 412 to 415 of 1975, 388 to 391 of 1979, 45 to 48 of 1980, 163 to 165 of 1980 and 206 to 208 of 1980 dt. 7th July, 1980, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court in the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1975-76 in the case of five assessees : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the location and user of the properties the method adopted by the Tribunal is sustainable or is based on any correct principle of valuation ?' 2. These references relate to WT assessments made in the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1975-76. The relevant valuation dates are 31st March, 1972, 31st March, 1973, 31st March, 1974 and 31st March, 1975. The issue involved in these references is the valuation of the properties situated at No. 150-A and 123-A, Mount Road, Madras, in which the assessees had shares as under : Prope...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Vs. Ramaswamy Rice Merch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ524
Srinivasan, J.1. These appeals arise out of common judgment in O.P. Nos. 801 and 802 of 1992 and Application Numbers 5547 and 5548 of 1992, on the file of the Original Side. The learned single Judge has dismissed the original petitions and consequently held that the first respondent before him in each of the original petitions was entitled to a decree in terms of the awards passed by the second respondent/ arbitrator. Thus, the two applications before him were ordered by him.2. The facts are shortly thus: Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, which is hereinafter referred to as the appellant, invited tenders for supply of rice in May, 1989. The first respondent in O.S.A. Nos. 284 and 287 of 1994, which will be hereinafter referred to as the first respondent, and the first respondent in O.S.A. Nos. 285 and 286 of 1994, which will be hereinafter referred to as the second respondent, submitted the tenders. After negotiations, they entered into agreements on 16.6.1989 and on 23.6....
Tag this Judgment!Dhandapani Vs. Dhandapani S/O Palanisamy, and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1994
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3099
ORDER1. This revision is challenging the legality of the punishment without substantive sentence, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirapalli in C.A. No. 76/91a confirming the order of conviction passed in C.A. No. 76/91 confirming the order of conviction passed in CC. No. 495 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Karur. The revision petitioner was the complainant before the trial Court. He filed the complaint against the first respondent, who was the second accused, and another person for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 326, Indian Pedal Code alleging that on 26-2-88 when he was diverting the water for the irrigation of his sister's land, P.W. 2, this respondent and his father beat him and his sister, causing grievous injuries. The trial Court convicted the first respondent for the offences under Sections 326, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The other accused was acquitted...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »