Chennai Court March 1995 Judgments
Tmt. Kannammal Educational Trust Vs. University of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad303
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is one of the trustees of Tmt. Kannammal Educational Trust. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner trustee has stated that the Trust decided to start a Law College at Madras under the name and style of the Tamil Nadu Law College from the Academic Year 1994-95. It is stated that the trust possesses sufficient land, building, funds and all other infrastructural facilities to start the said Law College on a self-financing basis. After having made all such arrangements, the petitioner made an application to the Bar Council of India on 1-4-1994 requesting theBar Council of India to grant permission to start the college in the City of Madras. In response to the said application, the Bar Council of India sent a copy of the questionnaire which was directed to be filled and re-submitted to the council through the University. It is further stated that the petitioner complied with the said requirements and also paid a sum of Rs, 15,000...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Electric and Engineering Corpn. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR492(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The question which has been referred to the Court at the instance of the assessee by the Tribunal relates to the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79, the relevant accounting years ending on 31st March, 1977, and 31st March, 1978, and arises from a common order of the Tribunal under which it has agreed with the Revenue that the disallowance of the interest payment under s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the circumstances of the case is justified. The question referred to the Court for its opinion is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that as the beneficial owner of the share income and the recipient of the interest are the same, viz., S. P. Kotian, HUF, the provisions of s. 40(b) would be applicable to the interest paid to the aforesaid HUF for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79 2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of oil engines. Shri S. P...
Tag this Judgment!ion Exchange India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC156; [1996(73)FLR1217]; (1996)ILLJ283Mad
1. Though in some of the writ petitions the constitutional validity of Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, as amended by the Central Act 20 of 1987, has been challenged, but during the course of arguments in all these writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners have confined their arguments only to the scope and ambit of the provisions contained in Section 2(n) of the Act, as amended by the Central Act 20 of 1987. Therefore, we refrain from going into the contentions raised in the writ petition as to the validity of the provisions contained in Section 2(n) of the Factories Act as amended by the Central Act 20 of 1987.1.1. Thus, the only question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to the scope and ambit of Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, as amended by the Central Act 20 of 1987, hereinafter referred to as the Act.1.2. The cause for these writ petitions is that the applications filed by some of the companies and also t...
Tag this Judgment!Sarasammal Vs. Murugasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC450; (1995)IIMLJ319
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This LPA. is preferred against the order dated 2.3.1995 passed by the learned single Judge in CMA.No. 229 of 1995. Learned single Judge has dismissed the CMA.2. The question that arises for consideration is as to this maintainability. The CMA itself was preferred against the order dated 9.12.1994 passed by the Sub Judge, Tiruppur, on an application, I.A.No. 1124 of 1993 filed in A.S. No. 49 of 1993 for an order of temporary injunction. As against the decree passed in A.S. No. 49 of 1993, second appeal lies to this court, which has to be heard and decided by a single Judge.3. Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure Specifically provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any letters Patent for any High Court or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the Judgment, decision or order of such single Judge in s...
Tag this Judgment!C. Surendran Vs. T. Ravindran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)133CTR(Mad)9; [1996]217ITR368(Mad)
Shivappa, J. 1. The petitioner is seeking for quashing the proceedings initiated for offences under ss. 120B, 420 r/w s. 511, IPC, 1860, and under ss. 276C(1), 277 and 278B of the IT Act, 1961. The manner in which the offences have been committed are all matters of evidence. The petitioner has got a stage to urge all his contentions before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. I see no ground to quash the proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner is absent though it is 12.10 p. m. Petitions, therefore, dismissed. 2. Consequently, Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos. 5241 and 5242 of 1994 are also dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)135CTR(Mad)282; [1996]217ITR358(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders of the CIT purportedly passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1974-75 were valid in law ?' 2. The assessee is a company which had claimed relief under s. 80J of the Act in respect of an industrial undertaking for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1974-75. The relief claimed under s. 80J of the Act was initially refused by the ITO, but it was allowed in appeal by the Tribunal for the asst. yr. 1972-73 and by the AAC for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1974-75. While giving effect to these appellate orders, the ITO followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Madras Industrial Linings Ltd. vs . ITO : [1977]110ITR256(Mad) and treated the borrowed capital as part of the capital base in arriving at the extent of the relief. 3. In a matt...
Tag this Judgment!Lucas Tvs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR382(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. Two questions out of the three referred to us, namely, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax payable is not an allowable deduction and whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on belated payment of surtax is not an allowable deduction, it is conceded, stood answered in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sundaram Industries Ltd. vs . CIT : [1986]159ITR646(Mad) . The third question, 'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction under s. 35B of the IT Act, 1961, on inspection agency fee, warrants claim relating to export, interest on export packing credit paid to the SBI are not available ', needs, however, determination. 2. The assessee is a private limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of auto electrical equipment. It filed a return for the asst. yr. 1976-77 and besides other claims, made a claim for weighted deduction under s. 35B ...
Tag this Judgment!Natesan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR120(Mad)
S.M. Ali Mohamed, J. 1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), has been made by the Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A', on the following three questions for the opinion of this Court, namely : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 1,56,098 which represented the accrued liability of the assessee for the payment of gratuity to its employees based on actuarial valuation pertaining to the accounting year ended 31st March, 1974 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee had not satisfied the requirements of s. 40A(7)(b) of the IT Act for claiming deduction of the provision for gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,30,245 made in the company's accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1974, over and above the sum of Rs. 1,56,098 which represented the liabili...
Tag this Judgment!Seetharami Reddy Vs. Joseph Vilangadhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ463
ORDER1. This is an application filed under Section 2(c) read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to punish the Respondent for abusing the process of the court by misrepresentation and suppression of the fact of filing the writ petitions in the High Court in the suit filed before the City Civil Court Judge, in respect of the very same subject matter.2. On the notice being issued, the respondent had put in appearance through a counsel and filed a counter-affidavit. Therefore, the matter was heard at great length and came to be adjourned to today for further hearing. Today, the respondent has filed an additional counter-affidavit stating the background in which the suit came to be filed before the City Civil Court, and further, tendering an unconditional apology.3. Few facts of the case, which are not in dispute, are as follows:The petitioner filed two writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 5339 and 5340 of 1994) before this Court on 24.3.1994. In...
Tag this Judgment!Rajalinga Chettiar and ors. Vs. Nataraja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ211
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. All these three revision petitions arise out of a common judgment rendered by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 dismissing the appeals filed by the three petitioners against the orders of eviction passed against them by the Rent Controller. All the three petitioners are tenants in the various portions in the same building. Two grounds were urged for the purpose of eviction: (1) wilful default in payment of rent, and (2) bonafide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and re-construction.2. The Rent Controller by a common judgment in all the three rent control petitions filed by the petitioners, held that the grounds of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent and the bonafide requirement of the premises for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction, has been established. On appeals filed by the petitioners, the appellate authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »