Chennai Court February 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.
Kamakshi Ammal Vs. Rajalakshmi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad415; 1995(1)CTC372
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. 8th defendant in O.S. No. 474 of 1979 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai is the appellant, in this first appeal against the preliminary decree for partition, in respect of the suit properties claimed to be that of one Pavunambal, the mother of plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 and wile of the 1st defendant, granted by the said Court in favour of the 1st respondent-plaintiff.2. The suit properties are described in A to E Schedules to the plaint. As prayed for by the plaintiff the Court below has granted the abovesaid decree for the 1/7th share in plaint A. B and E schedule properties, 1/4th share in plaint C schedule properties and 1 / 14th share in plaint B schedule properties.3. The undisputed facts are: Velayutham Chattiar, the 7th defendant had two daughters, the 8th defendant and one Pavunambal, who died on 16-7-1979, leaving her husband, the 1st defendant, her five daughters, the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 and one son, the 6th defendant. Defendants 1...
C. Dasarathan Vs. Chairman and Managing Director and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1995
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ429Mad
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. When the writ appeal came up for hearing, we thought it necessary to hear the writ petition itself, therefore we directed writ petition 9194/1994 be posted for hearing along with the writ appeal which is preferred against the interim order passed in the writ petition. Accordingly we have heard both sides. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner hassought for quashing the Notification No. 1-16-87-Per I dated November 30, 1989 and furtherto direct the respondents to include the petitionerin the VSNE Medical Reimbursement Schemewith effect from June 30, 1989. The notificationdated November 30, 1989 which is produced atpage 8 of the typed set of records, adds a clauseto paragraph No. 8 of VSNE Medical Reimbursement Scheme, Clause 8 reads thus:- 'Amount of reimbursement under this scheme will be on the basis of salary drawn by either husband or wife to be determined on the strength of a joint declaration submitted by them.' It also further says that the entitlement of th...
Ponnusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ2841; (1995)IIMLJ482
ORDER1. One Ponnusamy (Petitioner) is the father of the detenu, Kumar. The detenu, it is said, is a goonda. Apart from the ground case, as not out in the grounds of detention, he had come to adverse notice in four other cases. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem (Second respondent), in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootloggers Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) clamped upon the detenu the impugned order of detention in his proceedings in CMP No. 24/Goondas/94(C2) dt. 12-4-94 with review to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. Mr. M. S. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service the following points for consideration :1. The representation dt. 28-4-94 had not been properly considered and disposed of with...
Ganga Bai and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Mad)188; [1996]221ITR59(Mad)
Abdul Hadi J. 1. These tax case revisions under section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), are concerned and they were heard together and a common order is passed. 2. The petitioner in Tax Cases Nos. 63 and 64 of 1993 is the wife of the petitioner in Tax Cases Nos. 65 and 66 of 1993. Tax Cases Nos. 64 and 66 of 1993 relate to the assessment year 1988-89 and Tax Cases Nos. 63 and 65 of 1993 relate to the assessment year 1989-90. 3. All these four cases arise out of the common order of the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, date July 16, 1992. Originally, the husband, Ponniah Nadar, and the wife, Ganga Bai, were assessed to agricultural income-tax in respect of the abovesaid two years, separately, one assessment in relation to the husband under section 17(3) of the Act, in respect of the total agricultural income realised by him from an extent of 69.94 acres held by him and another assessment on the wife, Ganga Bai, in res...
S.S. Sankaralingam Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR202(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In these tax case petitions, the assessee requests this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following common questions of law said to arise out of the common order of the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 under s. 27(3) of the WT Act for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no evidence regarding transfer of land in favour of the trust 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in determining the value at Rs. 1,05,750 having regard to the fact that the assessee had given up his claim over the land and buildings ?' 2. The assessee owns 223-1/2 cents of land along with a compound wall. The assessee permitted a trust, Sivaguru Sundaravel Charitable Trust, to construct buildings to run a women's hostel and also for establishing a pharmacy college. In the wealth-tax proceedings relating to the as...
Kandasamy Vs. Balammal and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC307
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The three Revisions have been filed against the orders in I.A. Nos. 54 of 1994, 56 of 1994 and 55 of 1994 in O.S. No. 1631 of 1978 respectively. The respondents herein have filed before the lower court I.A. No. 54 of 1994 for amendment of the plaint, I.A. No. 55 of 1994 for amendment of the preliminary decree and I.A. No. 56 of 1994 for amendment of the petition I.A. No. 855 of 1992 filed for passing of the final decree. The amendment sought for is only the correction of survey number in the description of the property. The lower Court has taken into consideration the relevant circumstances and allowed the application on the ground that the mistake is only a typographical error and the amendments sought for, do not change the cause of action or needs any fresh evidence.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that against the preliminary decree an appeal was filed in A.S. No. 98 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Court, Karur and the lower appellate court has a...
Ganapathy Engineering Manufacturers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1995
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)150
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961.'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transport charges for the carriage of goods to their destination outside India amounting to Rs. 4,08,181 would not be eligible for weighted deduction under s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1975-76 ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 56,265 paid by the assessee on the basis of the estimate voluntarily filed by it on 10th March, 1976 could not be treated as advance tax within the meaning of s. 214 of the IT Act, 1961; and that hence the assessee was not entitled to interest in respect of such sum under s. 214 of the Act, for the asst. yr. 1976-77 ?'2. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, the assessee-company claimed weight...
Mani Alias Ranganayaki and ors. Vs. M. Kokilamani, Represented by Her ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ307
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Though this has been posted along with several revision petitions, I find, after hearing counsel, that this relates to a separate dispute with reference to a particular item and this need not be tagged on to other revision petitions. The arguments in this civil revision petition are concluded though, the arguments in the other revision petitions have been partly heard.2. The revision petition is filed by respondents 6 to 12 on the execution proceedings, out of which this petition arises, who are the legal heirs of A. Rangasamy, who was one of the partners of Balasubramania Foundry. It is not necessary to narrate the facts leading to the decree in detail. Suffice it to say that there was an arbitration and a Retired Judge of this Court by name Justice C.J.R. Paul was nominated to be the Arbitrator by the Supreme Court of India. He sumitted an Award on 3.4.1985, which was made into decree by the Supreme Court on 11.8.1987. Under the Award, an extent of 50 cents in S...
Perumayee Vs. Jayarama Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ363
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1.The revision petitioner is the defendant, while the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 367 of 1989 on the file of District Munsif, Athur seeking the relief of mandatory injunction for the restoration of the mamool cart track, which was in existence, having been obliterated by the defendant.3. The plaintiff would claim that he purchased the lands in S. Nos. 127/1B2 and 127/3 of Oonathur village from one Arumugham Chettiar, by registered sale deed dated 13.6.1989. The defendant was a competitor for the purchase of those lands and somehow or other, the plaintiff got the sale deed of those lands in his favour. The aggrieved defendant therefore obliterated the mamool cart track, which was passing through his land in S. No. 127/4 (western portion) in order to spite the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff was impelled to resort to the initiation of the proceedings before Court praying for the aforesaid relief.4. The def...
National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. S. Gopalarathinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1995
Reported in: (1995)IIMLJ114
ORDERRaju, J.1. Having regard to the nature of the issue involved in the stay petition and also in the main appeal, the main appeal itself has been taken up for hearing and the learned counsel appearing on either side submitted their arguments in this regard. 2. Respondent herein undertakes engineering contract works and has entered into an agreement with the appellant for construction of buildings for Navodhaya Vidyalaya First Phase at Karaikal. Pursuant to the invitation to tender, the respondent submitted his offer on 2.12.1989 for doing work and the same was accepted by the appellantion 3.5.1990. The work is in progress. As per the terms and clause contained in the tender conditions, for any work done for more than Rs. 5,000/- the contractor would be entitled to receive a monthly payment for the work done on the certificate issued by the Engineer-in-charge regarding satisfactory completion of work. Clause (7) would also stipulate that the certificate of the Engineer-in-charge of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »