Chennai Court December 1995 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.
K. Mariappan and Five ors. Vs. Chennaivazh Nadargal Sangam and Three o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC148
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These appeals arise out of intcr-locutory applications in two suits O.S. Nos. 1566 and 1567 of 1994 on the original side of this Court. O.S.A. No. 305 of 1995 is against O.A. No. 1074 of 1994 in C.S. No. 1567 of 1994. O.S.A. Nos. 306 and 307 of 1995 are against O.A. Nos. 1075 and 6154 of 1994 respectively in C.S. No. 1566 of 1994. The parties will be referred to hereinafter by their rank in the suits.2. C.S. No. 1566 of 1994 is for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the schedule mentioned properties and for consequential injunction restraining the first defendant and his agents etc., from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned properties. The subject matter of the suit comprises three items of dry land of an extent of 2.56 acres in Survey No. 10/2, 3.76 acres in Survey No. 41 and 1.40 acres in Survey No. 43/1, taking a total of 7.72 acres in Thandalkalani village. Saidapet Taluk, Chengai M.G.R....
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Venu Suresh Sanjay Trust (Cit V. Venu S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)97
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 for opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80L, even while agreeing with the view taken by the Department that the income computed in the assessees case will be liable to tax under s. 164(1) treating such income as the total income of an AOP ?'2. Six reference applications were filed by the CIT, Madurai, seeking to raise two questions said to be questions of law arising out of the common order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 790, 791 and 795 to 798 (Mad) of 1979, dt. 30th June, 1980, in the case of three trusts, viz., Venu Suresh Sanjay Trust, Venu Suresh Ramya Trust Madurai, and Ramesh Mahesh Radha Trust, Madurai, for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76. Even though two questio...
C.P. Mythili Vs. Sri Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal Devasthanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ373
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 6016 of 1990 in O.S. No. 8648 of 1981 on the file of the Second Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The legal representative of the deceased defendant is the petitioner herein. I.A. No. 6016 of 1990 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 472 days in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal for default and to restore the application in I.A. No. 1771 of 1986 in O.S. No. 8648 of 1981. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 8648 of 1981, against the deceased Kothai Ammal for ejectment from the suit property. The tenant filed an application under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Achand the same was allowed and a Commissioner was appointed to fix up the market value of the suit property and also to fix the extent required for the convenient enjoyment of the deceased defendant. I.A. No. 1771 of 1986 came up for filing of the Commissioner's report on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›