Chennai Court August 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.
Navaneetham Vs. S.S. Jayarama Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ28
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned District Judge of East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam, dated 31.8.1994 dismissing the O.P. No. 11 of 1984 filed under Section 13 (1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. The petitioner in the abovesaid O.P. has filed the same seeking divorce from her husband alleging that the respondent who is her husband is committing cruelty and has deserted her.3. The respondent has filed a counter resisting the petition stating that the petitioner was discarding and disrespecting him and she had deserted her children and eloped with one Kaliayaperumal and therefore she is not entitled to a decree for divorce.4. The learned District Judge of East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam, after enquiry had dismissed the application.5. From the impugned order, it is seen that the petitioner and the respondent have examined themselves as P.W.1 and R.W.1 respectively and the petitioner has filed two exhibits before the learned District Judge. The learne...
V. Palaniappa Udayar and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ449
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. By a common order dated 12.8.1993. passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 3861 to 3863, 6613 to 6615, 6615, 6673 to 6675, 6772, 6839 to 6841, 7796 to 7798 and 9032 of 1993 all the writ petitions were dismissed. W.A. No. 1258 of 1993 is preferred against the order in W.P. No. 6674 of 1993. In the writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 21426 to 21446 of 1993, the petitioners have challenged the very same acquisition in question. Hence, the writ appeal and the writ petitions are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.2. The appellants are the petitioners in the writ petitions. They sought for quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act. G.O.Ms. No. 186, Industries (MIE) Department, dated 15.5.1992 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire vast extent of land for a public purpose, to wit, for Pig Iron Project to be set up by Southern Iron and Stee...
Mariasoosai Vs. Clara Mary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad35; II(1995)DMC562
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This case raises an interesting question of law. The original petition is one filed under S. 4 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 by the husband for a decree declaring that the alleged marriage between him and the respondent is null and void and consequently, the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. In the petition, it is stated that he was having intimacy with the respondent for a few months and in order to compel him to marry her, the respondent's parents and relatives, with the help of the police, by force got executed a deed of marriage on paper bearing Rs. 2.50 stamp on the 27th October, 1988 and got it registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Andimadam. According to the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, a Christian marriage can be solemnized only in any of the modes prescribed in S. 5 of the said Act. No formality or ceremony was gone through and only an agreement was executed as stated earlier and that too, under com...
Mallika Rani Vs. D.S. Rajendran and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad100
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. The original petition ison the ground that the first respondent-husband is guilty of desertion coupled withadultery. The marriage took place on 7-12-1981. The first respondent was having illicitintimacy with the second respondent who washissister-in-law, a widow. In February 1984, the first respondent left the matrimonial home after a quarrel intentionally began by him stating that he would never return. Since then the petitioner and the first respondent were separated.2. The petition was contested by the respondents. They have filed separate counter statements. The petitioner has given evidence substantiating the allegations made in the petition. She has also stated that the first respondent is a drunkard and at times, he will drink to such an extent that he does not know as to what he is doing. P.W. 12 is a relative of the first respondent. He has given evidence to the effect that the first respondent is living away from the petitioner from the beginning of 198...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Radiators Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR835(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this court in Tax Cases Nos. 94 and 95 of 1980 (Deputy Commr., Sales Tax, Appellate (Addl.) Bench, Coimbatore v.Tvl. India Roller Flour Mills) (sic) under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the capital computed by the assessee for the purpose of allowing relief under section 80J in respect of heavy duty radiator division has to be accepted (ii) 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 borrowed capital should also be taken as capital for the purpose of allowing relief under section 80J for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 (iii) Whether, on the facts the Appellate Tribunal's view that...
Nilgiri Finance and Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR384(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In accordance with the direction given by this court in T.C. No. 284 of 1979, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that on the merits and in view of the provisions of section 314 of the Companies Act, 1956, the enhancement of remuneration for the director is not warranted ?' 2. According to the facts arising in this case the wife of the managing director who is also a director in the company was paid a remuneration of Rs. 1,000 per mensem. Formerly, she was paid a remuneration of Rs. 500 per mensem. For the enhancement of Rs. 500, according to the Income-tax Officer, the approval was not obtained in the first meeting of the general body held after such increase was made. This was confirmed by the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On appeal, the Tribunal held t...
Allied Cargo Motors and anr. Vs. S. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR1119]
1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation), Tiruchirapalli, dated October 4, 1986 on an application filed by one Manickam for compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment under the first respondent in which the Deputy Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs. 27,556 and directed the second respondent to pay the same. 2. The case of the applicant is that he was a driver under the first respondent in respect of vehicle TMT 5166 and on October 10, 1984, while he was in the service of the first respondent and driving the vehicle near the petrol bunk at Mangalamedu on Madras-Tiruchi Road, met with an accident by dashing against another lorry, bearing registration No. TMT 3682, and as a result of the same, he sustained injuries which resulted in the amputation of the fourth and fifth toes of the right leg and, therefore, he is entitled to compensation. 3. The first res...
Maria Soosai Vs. Clara Mary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ282
Srinivasan. J.1. This case raises an interesting question of law. The original petition is one filed under Section 4 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, by the husband for a decree declaring that the alleged marriage between him and the respondent is null and void and consequently, the respondent is not his legally wedded wife. In the petition, it is stated that he was having intimacy with the respondent for a few months and in order to compel him to marry her, the respondent's parents and relatives, with the help of the Police, by force got executed a deed of marriage on paper bearing Rs. 2.50 stamp on the 27th October, 1988 and got it registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Andimadam. According to the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, a Christian marriage can be solemnized only in any of the modes prescribed in Section 5 of the said Act. No formality or ceremony was gone through and only an agreement was executed as stated earlier and that too, und...
G. Ganesan and anr. Vs. C. Polycarp Pancharathnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1994
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC170
T. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. These three appeals arise out of three claim petitions decided by the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur in a single accident which have been tried together and passed a common award. Hence, we heard all these appeals together and pass a common judgment.2. C.M.A. No. 87 of 1986 arises out of M.C.O. No. 3 of 1984 whereas C.M.A. No. 40 of 1987 is against M.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1984 and C.M.A. No. 41 of 1987 is challenging the award in M.C.O.P. No. 6 of 1984.3. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 875 of 1986 filed a claim petition on the averments that he was working as an Assistant No. 3 in the District Court of South Arcot at Cuddalore on a salary of Rs. 900/- per month. On 1.12.1993, the petitioner and his friends including the claimants in the other petitions, were going in an van belonging to the first respondent. When it was nearing Valikandapuram, a lorry belonging to the second respondent came rashly and negligently from the opposite direction and knocked down the van, as a r...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S.S. Transport (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR771(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the directions given by this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is liability to capital gains tax by reason of the transfer of the buses to the managing director, Mr. Sathar Singh, during the relevant previous year 2. Whether in the absence of any proof of actual receipt of consideration in excess of what is shown in the transaction between the parties the provisions of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act could be applied ? 3. Whether the value of Rs. 1,10,000 estimated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for routes transfer is proper and legal 4. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the motor vehicle tax paid by the assessee which did not relate to the year should be allowed as deduction in computing the total income of the asse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »