Chennai Court January 1995 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sivakasi Hindu Nadars Uravinmurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR118(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The question before us is, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-trust is entitled to claim exemption under s. 11 r/w s. 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee is a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act and also registered as a public charitable institution with the CIT under s. 12A of the Act. It sought exemption as stipulated under s. 11 r/w s. 2(15) of the Act. The ITO, however, declined to grant exemption to it on the ground that it received income from hire of furniture and a Kalyana Mandapam, which according to him was an activity for profit. The AAC declined to interfere with the order of the ITO. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal. According to the statement of the case, the Tribunal went through the objects of the trust and found them to be clearly charitable. It did not find any element of business activity for profit in any o...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Suryanarayana Paper and Boards Private Limited and Others Vs. V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad140
ORDER1. These two revision petitions are against the orders passed by the District Munsif, Udumalaipet, in I.A. Nos. 266 and 267 of 1995, granting an interim injunction at the time of ordering notice on 31-1-1995. In I.A. No. 266 of 1995 the injunction was restraining the respondents from taking any steps to delete Art. 16 of the Articles of Association of the 1st respondent company in violation of the rights of the plaintiffs under the said Articles. In I.A. Nos. 267 of 1995, the injunction was one, restraining respondents 2 to 6 from transferring the shares held by them in the 1st respondent company to any persons without offering them in the first instance to the plaintiffs and restraining the company from registering or giving any effect to the transfer of such shares. In both the applications, the orders passed are in the following terms.'Heard and perused. Issue notice with copy of documents. Ad interim injunction granted till 9-2-1995.'2. Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalakrishnan Vs. P. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad274
ORDER1. Having regard to the nature ofthe issues involved for consideration in the miscellaneous petition as well as in the main revision being one and the same, the revisionitself is taken up for final hearing.2. The revision has been filed by the defendant/respondent in the Courts below against the order of the learned District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai dated 18-7-1994 made in I.A. No. 1571 of 1994 in O.S. No. 301 of 1994 allowing the claim of the respondent herein and directing the appointment of the taluk surveyor of Mayiladuthurai taluk to inspect the suit property in question and submit a report. It is seen that the plaintiff has earlier filed an application for the appointment of a surveyor to inspect and submit a report and the respondent has also filed another application for appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to note the physical features in the suit property and file a report. The Advocate Commissioner appears to have submitted a report after inspection and the surveyor appoin...
Tag this Judgment!Asstt. Collector of C. Ex. (P), Coimbatore Vs. K.V. Kunnikannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(78)ELT654(Mad)
ORDER1. Heard. The petitioner is questioning the order of the learned Magistrate dated 1-6-1989 returning primary gold seized in the case market as M.O. 3 to 20 to the Accused No. 2. Petitioner is the Assistant Collector, Central Excise (Preventive) Unit, Headquarters, Coimbatore. The case is that on 24-5-1985 one person by name P. Ganesh was apprehended in C.T.C. bus on suspicion. On search of that person, 12 numbers of gold rods in a paper packet and 8 numbers of gold rods in another paper packet were found and before he could be examined in detail, under the pretext of answering the calls of nature, he escaped leaving primary goods seized from him. The next day on intelligence the same person was apprehended and interrogated. On investigation it was revealed that his real name was P. Vilasan. It was also ascertained that he came from Kasargod with the primary gold seized in this case for disposal at Coimbatore along with one Kunnikannan and since the broker through whom it is to be ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mathias Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Rare Earths Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC189
1. After hearing this matter in full, a suggestion was made by the Court, taking into account the equities and Justice of the matter, more particularly the fact that the petitioner has worked with the respondent for seventeen years from 1972 to 1989, that he was employed as Security Guard. The respondents' establishment is part of the Atomic Energy establishment and therefore its need for security is of a higher order, the fact that the petitioner has, in the past, been found to have neglected his duty on different occasions having been found sleeping while on duty and also having been found negligent in the performance of his work, the fact that the Enquiry Officer, has, in the enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner which ultimately led to his dismissal, found that the petitioner was guilty of having behaved in a disorderly way and caused damage to the employer property by breaking the time clocks and also by using abusive language to the co-workers; that though an enq...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sadayappan Vs. P. Nagarajan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC196
ORDERA. Thangamani, J.1. Revision petitioner Sadayappan is applicant No. 1 in the proceedings dated 14-6-1994 in O.S.No. 68 of 48 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Nagapatinam (O.S. No. 17 of 60 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai). On 24-7-1951 in O.S.No. 68 of 48 learned Subordinate Judge of Mayuram passed a Scheme decree regarding 'The Anbanathapuram vahaira Charities'. As per the Scheme, the surplus income available after the performance of the charities in the Dhitta Japta is to be utilised for the promotion of education by the establishment of a college etc. Accordingly a college has been established by the charity under the name A.V.C. College, Mannampandal with the approval and sanction of the Court. On 6-4-1960 the Scheme was amended. Subsequently the suit was re-numbered as O.S. 17 of 1960. The Scheme provided that the entire property of the charities shall vest in a Board of Trustees consisting of a Chairman and five trustees to be appointed by the court as fa...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Jaisingh Vs. C.R. Govindaswami Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)1MLJ540
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. O.S. No. 885 of 1984 was filed by respondents 1 and 2/ plaintiffs against the appellant/1st defendant and the 3rd respondent/2nd defendant for recovery of vacant possession of the property more fully described in Schedules A and B to the plaint and known as National Talkies, West Mambalam, Madras-33, and to direct the appellant/ 1st defendant to pay respondents 1 to 3/ plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per month from 1.1.1984 upto the date of plaint and also future damages at the same rate from the date of plaint till the date of delivery of possession and for costs.2. O.S. No. 9075 of 1983 was filed by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 885 of 1984 against the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 885 of 1984 and also against the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Madras-8, for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 therein from interfering with the quiet and peaceful possession of the suit prope...
Tag this Judgment!D.S. Davey Vs. M. Chitti Babu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC43; (1995)IIMLJ364
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P.3117 of 1992 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. That application was filed by him against the present respondent who is the landlord under Section 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, for restoration of the electricity amenity for the portion of ground-floor bearing door No. 35, Perumal 2nd Street, Purasawalkkam, Madras, of which he is the tenant. There is no dispute that the revision petitioner is in occupation of the two room portion of the ground floor of door No. 35 which has separate latrine and bath. According to him, the respondent landlord sought his eviction in R.C.O.P.No.69 of 1991, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of that application, the landlord disconnected the electricity of the petitioner's portion on 19.6.1991. So, he filed R.C.O.P.1890 of 1991 for restoration of the amenity. The respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Davey Vs. M. Chitti Babu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ364
ORDERThangamani, J.1. The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 3117 of 1992 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. That application was filed by him against the present respondent who is the landlord under Section 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 for restoration of the electricity amenity for the portion of ground floor bearing door No. 35, Perumal 2nd Street, Purasawakkam, Madras, of which he is the tenant. There is no dispute that the revision petitioner is in occupation of the two room portion of the ground floor of door No. 35 which has separate latrine and bath. According to him, the respondent landlord sought his eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 69 of 1991 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of that application, the landlord disconnected the electricity of the petitioner's portion on 19.6.1991. So, he filed R.C.O.P. No. 1890 of 1991 for restoration of the amenity. The re...
Tag this Judgment!V. Venkatachalam Vs. N. Radhakrishnan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad279
ORDER1. The unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in R.C.O.P. No. 22/1990 dated 28-3-1991, and R.C.A. No. 8/1991 dated 19-8-1991, which confirms the order of eviction passed against him is the revision petitioner herein canvassing the impugned orders for their want of legality and propriety and correctness, by both Courts below.2. A residential premises has been let out to the tenant-petitioner herein even during the lifetime of his father and the landlords, the respondents herein became the owner of this property by means of a purchase deed under Ex.P. 1 dated 29-10-1986. These facts are not in dispute. Claiming that the revision petitioner-tenant is in arrears of rent and the rental premises in question was a old one, and since the respondents are residing in a rental premises, projecting those three grounds under Ss. 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »