Chennai Court February 1995 Judgments
Chinnakani Vs. Sivanadimai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3138
ORDER1. This private Revision is against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 377 of 1991 for the offences punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34, I.P.C. 2. The occurrence took place on 22-5-1990 at about 7 P.M. in Vairavikinaru Village. The prosecution case is that the deceased Suyambulingam and his wife PW-1 came to the shop of one Perumal Nadar to purchase articles required for their daily use and thereafter, they went to the shop of PW-3 for purchasing some more articles and thereafter when they were returning to their house, the accused/respondents questioned the deceased Suyambulingam as to how he had arranged for exhibiting a Video film in the Street, for which, the deceased answered that he need not ask the permission of anybody and in the word quarrel, the respondents/accused cut the deceased with Aruval and knife causing fatal injuries and PW-1 and others when took him to the hospital at Nagercoil he succu...
Tag this Judgment!Peirce Leslie and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)324; [1995]216ITR176(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. Although in the statement of the case three questions of law are indicated, it appears and it is conceded at the Bar that the third question, 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought not to have held that the deduction under s. 80G was allowable in respect of donation in kind amounting to Rs. 9,366' does not arise and it is a mistake that the same has been included in the statement of the case as a question for a decision by this Court. 2. The first question, 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the reopening of the assessment under s. 147(b) of the IT Act was valid', has to be answered strictly in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs . CIT : [1979]119ITR996(SC) . We have in Tax Case No. 79 of 1982, order dt. 31st Jan., [reported as M. A. Chidambaram vs . CIT : [1995]216ITR175(Mad) ] note : '.... it is concede...
Tag this Judgment!V.D. Swami and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR129(Mad)
The Court 1. The instant reference at the instance of the assessee of the two questions, (a) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) is not available on the items claimed amounting to Rs. 1,23,449; and (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim is not even alternatively allowable under s. 35B(1)(b)(v), is an unnecessary exercise, and it appears, it is an act of an overzealous assessee and a soft and yielding Tribunal. 2. In the long statement of the case, the Tribunal has pointed out that the assessee-company derived income from export of engineering goods and import handling commission. The assessee claimed weighted deduction under s. 35B (export markets development allowance) on the expenditure of Rs. 4,76,543. The ITO disallowed such deduction in respect of the expenditure of Rs. 2,37,313. Before the CIT(A), the assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Coats Viyella India Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus. and C. Ex. (A), Tiruchirap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(82)ELT449(Mad)
ORDER1. This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the counter and reply affidavits filed herein, and the orders of this Court, dated 22-12-1994 and 7-2-1995 and made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Govind Swaminathan, Senior Counsel for M/s. N. S. Sivan, G. Anbumani and J. Sivanandaraj, Advocates for the petitioner and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents, the court made the following order :- The Writ Petition is to quash the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, dated 9-11-1994 and the consequential orders, Spot Memo dated 30-11-1994 and O. C. No. 1480 of 1994 dated 5-12-1994 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The Writ Miscellaneous Petition is for staying the operation of the said appellate order dated 9-11-1994 as well as the consequential orders, Spot Memo dated 30-11-1994 and O. C. No. 1480 of 1994 d...
Tag this Judgment!K. Munuswami Gounder and anr. Vs. M. Govindaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1995
Reported in: I(1996)DMC25
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Defendants 1 and 6 are the appellants in this appeal. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 170 of 1980 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruppathur, for directing division of the suit properties, put him in sepalate possession of his l/7th share and for other allied reliefs. The 1st appellant is the 1st defendant in the suit. The 2nd appellant is one of the sons of the 1st defendant through one Peruma Ammal. The 1st respondent/plaintiff is the son of one Pappammal. The 2nd respondent/2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant through his first wife Mari. Respondents 3 to 5/Defendants 3 to 5 are the sons of the 1st defendant through his third wife Peruma Ammal.2. The case of the plaintif in short is as follows :The 1st defendant is his father. On the death of Mari, his first wife, in or about 1941, the 1st defendant married one Pappammal, who is the mother of the plaintiff, in or about 1942 according to Hindu Law, custom and rites at Perumapattu vil...
Tag this Judgment!The Licencee, Jayaram Touring Vs. V. Sudhakar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad357; 1995(2)CTC73
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J.1. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether G.O.Ms. No. 2033 dated 19-9-1988 can be construed or can be held to have the force of the rule framed under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). By the aforesaid Government Order, the State Government has decided as follows: 'The Government have examined the matter carefully, in consultation with Commissioner of Land Administration and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras. The Government have decided that Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 may be amended to make provision in the said rules for the grant of No Objection Certificate on population basis. The Government, however, consider that while this may be reasonable in the rural areas, in Municipal Towns, areas of high labour or working class population this may appear to be inadequate. The norm of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dwarka Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR115(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the entire expenses incurred by the official liquidator of the assessee-company in the course of liquidation proceedings was allowable as deduction under s. 57(iii) on the ground that they were incurred wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the purpose of earning interest and other miscellaneous income in the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1983-84?' 2 The official liquidator, representing Dwarka Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Madras, is the assessee. The assessment years are from 1978-79 to 1983-84. The assessee follows the financial year as the previous year. The assessee is a company carrying on chit fund business. The said company was wound up by the High Court by its order dt 25th June, 1976. The High Court appointed the offici...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Vs. K. Dharmar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad173
ORDER1. Petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 419 of 1989, on the file of the District Munsuf's Court, at Thirumangalam.2. The reliefs sought in the plaint are as follows :--'(a) declaring that the defendant has no right of any kind to run the rice mill in the suit property in view of the permit given to the plaintiff alone;(b) for a permanant injunction to restrainthe defendant, his men and agents, etc., from running the rice mill and hulling paddy to the prejudice of the plaintiffs,(c) to direct the defendant to pay damages for the loss caused to the tune of Rs. 8,000/ -.'3. There is only one defendant in the suit against whom the reliefs are sought.4. The defendant filed I.A. No. 1232 of 1989 praying that respondents 2 to 4 herein be impieaded as additional defendants in the suit. The same was objected by the petitioner herein. Repelling the objection, the Court below allowed the application. This revision is filed challenging the said Order.5. The main reason that is stated in the...
Tag this Judgment!T. Vanamamalai Vs. T.D. Sundara Varadhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas188(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. The formal action had been resorted to, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 310 of 1992, an the file of the judicial Magistrate No. II. Poonamallee, initiated by the respondent-complainant against the petitioner-accused for the alleged offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. XXVI of 1881 - as amended by Act 66 of 1988 - for short 'the Act'). An alleged true copy of the complaint had been annexed in the typed set of papers and it revealed at the foot of it as below : 'Dated at Poonamallee this 23rd day of November, 1992.' An argument had been projected on the basis that if the said complaint had been filed on November 23, 1992, then in such case, the complaint must be construed to have been filed even before the cause of action arose. (a) Under section 138 of the Act, a cheque has to be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it was drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier. ...
Tag this Judgment!Vivek Goenka Vs. Manoj Kumar Sonthalia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ750; (1995)IIMLJ622
ORDER1. Mr. Vivek Goenka, 6th defendant in C.S. No. 1246 of 1992 is the petitioner in this contempt application. The respondent Mr. Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 1246 of 1992. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant herein submitted as under :- On 1-10-1992, Kanakaraj J. passed an order in Application Nos. 764, 768, 4718, 770, 4790 and 772 of 1992 in C.S. No. 1246 of 1992 and in applications Nos. 748, 750 and 761 of 1992 in C.S. No. 1247 of 1992 as under :- 'Without going into these facts, I direct the respondents to preserve status quo as on today so far as the office and powers of the applicant/plaintiff as joint Managing Director of the first defendant company. It is clarified that the powers of the applicant as on today, are as per the delegations made by the Board of Directors of the third defendant company. His office and powers as above shall be preserved till the applicaations are taken up for further hearing after the Pooja Holidays.' Appli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »