Chennai Court September 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.
Mala Ramesh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR223(Mad)
G.C. Gupta J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the assessee, referring the following question of law for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method adopted by the Tribunal for valuing the cost of shares in the hands of the respective assessee for the purpose of arriving at the taxable capital gains is correct in law ?' 2. The assessee has admittedly held 1,031 shares in Madras Motors and General Insurance Co. Ltd. which was acquired by the Government. The compensation paid was Rs. 197.44 per share and there was dispute about it. Out of this, 147 shares were purchased on February 25, 1971, and the surplus received in relation to the shares was assessable as long-term capital gains and regarding the quantum thereof, there was no dispute. For the balance of 884 shares, the capital gains related thereto was assessable as long-term capital gains. The Tribunal, relying on its earlier order for the assessment year 1973-74, directed the Income...
Murugesan Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC179
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai dated 14.7.86 granting compensation of Rs. 6,720/- to the applicant and directing the first opposite party to pay the same.2. The case of the applicant is as follows: The applicant was a workman under the Opposite Party No. 2 in his Tractor No. TNU 7806. On 30.4.1983 at about 4.30 p.m. when he was returning to Devadanapatti, near No. 10, Toddy Shop in Devadanapatti, Madurai Road, the Tractor toppled down in the adjacent channel. The applicant was caught below the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. The monthly wages of the applicant was Rs. 600/-. The applicant is about 15 years of age. The tractor has been insured with the Opposite Party No. 1. The applicant is entitled to a lump sum payment of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence the application.3. The first Opposite Party viz., the Insurance Company filed a counter stating briefly as follows: The applicant has to prove that he was ...
Colonel 'Q' and anr. Vs. G. Ravindran Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ592Mad
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. All these writ appeals are directed against the common order dt. 13-7-1993 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 18464 of 1991 and 2472 to 2474 of 1992. 2. W.P. No. 18464 of 1991 was filed by tow persons by names Babian and U. Nathan and W.A. No. 918 of 1993 arises out of the said writ petition W.P. Nos. 2472 to 2474 of 1992 were preferred by G. Ravindran Pillai, D. Rajkumar and A. Naziruddin respectively and W.A. Nos. 915, 917 and 916 of 1993 respectively arise out of these writ petitions. As the writ petitions have been decided against the respondents therein, it is they who have preferred all these appeals. 3. In W.P. No. 18464 of 1991, the petitioners sought for quashing the order dated 16-12-1991 bearing Ref. No. 4011/7/MQ2 (EMP) passed by the Lt. Col, Officer General Col. 'Q', terminating with immediate effect i.e. from 17-12-1991 the services of the two petitioners, and they were also relieved of their duties immediately and paid one month's salary ...
P. Azeez Ahmed Vs. State Bank of India, Vaniyambadi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad194
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order passed in R.F.A. No. 56 of 1991 in R.E.P.No. 12 of 1989 in O.S. No. 105 of 1987 on the file of the Sub-Judge. Thiru-pathur. The petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder State Bank of India, Vaniyambadi Branch, obtained the decree on 26-10-1988 against the petitioner herein R.P. No. 12 of 1989 was filed for arrest of the judgment-debtor. The execution petition was posted for hearing on 22-4-1991. The judgment-debtor was not present in Court on that date. The judgment-debtor filed a petition under O.21, R. 106(1), C.P.C. and S. 151, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order of arrest made against him. According to the judgment-debtor, he noted down the date of hearing wrongly as 24-4-1991 instead of 22-4-1991. When he came to Court on 24-4-1991, he came to know that the order of arrest was made against him on 22-4-1991. According to the judgment-debtor, the Court has not applied its mind with regard to means of the judgm...
Vinson Engineering Company Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: (1995)IILLJ1224Mad
ORDERMishra, J.1. The petitioner herein is an establishment which is subjected to the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The establishment, it is said, was originally known as M/s. N. Balasubramaniam, which was allegedly closed on January 4, 1981 and restarted on April 13, 1981, under anew management According to the petitioner at the alleged closure, M/s. N. Balasubramaniam paid off and settled all their employees and some of the employees who sought settlement of their provident fund accounts with the respondent. Ex. employees of M/s. N. Balasubramaniam, however, were appointed by the petitioner from April 13, 1981 under new account numbers for the provident fund contributions. The respondent, however, maintained that the transfer of the establishment to the petitioner did not make it a new establishment altogether for the purposes of recovery; of the contributions as per law and the petitioner, in view of the same...
Baywood Represented by Shobana Nair Vs. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ107
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant has preferred the C.R.P. against the order dated 22.4.1994 passed in I.A. No. 3783 of 1994(in O.S. No. 3683 of 1985) which was filed by it, for setting aside the exparte decree dated 31.3.1986 against it in the said O.S. No. 3683 of 1985 on the file of VII Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The impugned order simply runs as follows:The impugned petition will be allowed on deposit of Rs. 81,058.73 in court on or before 14.6.1994 failing which this petition shall stand dismissed.So, it is clear that without any discussion the impugned order has been passed stating that the I.A. will be allowed on the petitioner depositing the above said sum, which is prayed for in the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was not even a counter-affidavit to the said LA. Learned counsel for the respondent could not repudiate this contention. While so, it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in the above fashion without adverting to ...
P. Azeez Ahmed Vs. State Bank of India, Represented by Its Branch Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ446
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in R.E.A. No. 56 of 1991 in R.E.P. No. 12 of 1989 in O.S. No. 105 of 1987 on the file of the Sub Judge, Tirupathur. The petitioner herein is the judgment-debtor. The decree holder -State Bank of India, Vaniyambadi Branch, obtained the decree on 26.10.1988 against the petitioner herein E.P. No. 12 of 1989 was filed for arrest of the judgment-debtor. The execution petition was posted for hearing on 22.4.1992. The judgment-debtor was not present in court on that date. The judgment-debtor filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 106(1), C.P.C. and Section 151, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order of arrest made against him. According to the judgment-debtor, he noted down the date of hearing wrongly as 24.4.1991 instead of 22.4.1991. When he came to court on 24.4.1991, he came to know that the order of arrest was made against him on 22.4.1991 According to the judgment-debtor, the court has not applied its mind with ...
Baby Ammal Vs. Mrs. Meher Jameel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ632
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff preferred this revision petition against the order dated 15.4.1994 made in C.M.P. No. 18 of 1994 impleading the 18th defendant (the respondent herein) as a party in the appeal A.S. No. 259 of 1993 filed by the petitioner herein against the dismissal of her suit O.S. No. 4869 of 1982. The said 18th defendant was a party in the said suit. But, in the decree in the said suit, it is observed that she remained ex parte in the suit. Presumably on that ground, the plaintiff when she filed A.S. No. 259 of 1993 did not implead the 18th defendant as party respondent in the appeal.2. In the above situation, C.M.P. No. 18 of 1994 was filed by the 18th defendant. The court below while passing the order impleading the said 18th defendant has observed as follows:This petitioner (the 18th defendant) was seriously contesting the suit. But by mistake or by oversight, this petitioner has described as ex parte in the lower court decree and judgment.... In the present ca...
G. Swaminathan and anr. Vs. Banumathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ515
ORDERS. Subramani, J.1. Defendants in O.S. NO. 81 of 1990 before the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, are the revision petitioners.2. The first respondent herein filed the above suit for recovery of amount on the basis of two promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the petitioners on 7.2.1986 and 14.8.1987 for Rs. 10,000 each. It is also alleged in the plaint that the promissory note dated 7.2.1986 is not barred since the same is acknowledged in the subsequent promissory note dated 14.8.1987. The cause of action for the suit is stated to have arisen on the dates of promissory notes under the jurisdiction of Kumbakonam. A sum of Rs. 28,750 is claimed as due to the plaintiff as on the date of suit with future interest.3. In the written statement filed by the second defendant, it is stated that the first defendant has nothing to do with the suit transaction and that is not benefited by the amounts given by the plaintiff. It is further averred by him that he has no transaction with...
Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1994
Reported in: [1995]82CompCas77(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. Electrical Accessories Private Ltd. (company in liquidation), hereinafter referred to as 'the company', had dealings with Best and Crompton Engineering Ltd., the appellant herein. The date of the last transaction was December 16, 1976. The closing of the accounting year for the appellant was December 31, 1976. It is not in dispute that the transactions were covered by a mutual, open and current account. The petition for winding up of the company was filed on January 24, 1977, in C.P. No. 21 of 1977. The order of winding up was passed on March 2, 1978. On March 2, 1982, the official liquidator presented an application under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for a direction to the appellant pay a sum of Rs. 39,561.92 plus interest of Rs. 9,428.57 totalling in all Rs. 48,990.49 with subsequent interest at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. The report of the official liquidator filed in support of the applicat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »