Chennai Court March 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.
Srivarammal (Since Died) and 2 ors. Vs. B. Kanakmal JaIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC401; (1995)IIMLJ228
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Landlords who obtained physical possession of the building through Court on 1.2.1987, are the revision petitioners.2. The material facts are as follows:- Petitioners filed R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 1984, on the file of Rent Control Court for cviting the respondents herein, on the ground that they require the building for their own occupation, i.e., for conducting a Pawn Broker's business. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, and the Appellte Authority confirmed the said decision, against which the respondents herein filed C.R.P. No. 3305 of 1986 before this Court. The Civil Revision Petition was not admitted, and, pursuant to the undertaking given by the respondents herein, the building was taken possession on 1.2.1987. The present petition was filed by the tenants under Section 10(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act I960, alleging that the landlords did not occupy it within one month from the date of obtaining possession.3. In the counter...
Srivarammal (Died) and ors. Vs. B. Kanammal JaIn and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ228
ORDERS.S. SubramaTN-1993-0304.bgmni, J.1. Landlords who obtained physical possession of the building through court on 1.2.1987, are the revision petitioners.2. The material facts are as follows:Petitioners filed R.C.O.P. No. 25 of I984, on the file of Rent Control Court, for evicting, the respondents herein on the ground that they require the building for their own occupation, i.e., for conducting a pawn broker's business. The rent controller ordered eviction and the appellate authority confirmed the said decision, against which the respondents herein filed C.R.P. No. 3305 of 1985 before this Court. The civil revision petition was not admitted, and, pursuant to the undertaking given by the respondents herein the building was taken possession on 1.2:1987. The present petition was filed by the tenants under Section 10(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging that the landlords did not occupy it within one month from the date of obtaining possession.3...
The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Varadaraja Perumal Koil Vs. P. Arumug ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ453
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 11th October, 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5243 of 1993.2. Learned single Judge has set aside the order passed by the State Government in the appeal and remitted the matter to the State Government with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh and in the light Of the observations made in the order. Though in the course of the order, learned single Judge has referred the appeal as revision, but what was preferred before the State Government, was an appeal under the provisions of Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. The question for consideration is as to whether the property belonging to a temple governed by the Act, can be directed to be said by public auction.4. The contentions of the 1st respondent is that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act, it is not permissible to direct the A...
K.M. Madhavakrishnan Vs. S.R. Swami and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad318; (1995)IIMLJ127
ORDERA. R. Lakshmanan, J.1. This case has a chequered history. Both parties are in Court fighting their litigation tooth and nail from the year 1968 onwards. On the first round of litigation, the suit O.S. No. 71 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, initiated by the appellant herein and her mother, ended in dismissal and Appeal No. 928 of 1975 filed by the appellant herein in this Court was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 5-2-1980 (K. M. Madhavakrishnan v. S. R. Swami : (1980)2MLJ398 . Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the unsuccessful plaintiff K. M. Madhavakrishnan filed Civil Appeal No. 1368 of 1980 before the Supreme Court. The same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9-11-1983 under Ex. A.22. The first round of litigation was given a quietus by the judgment of the Supreme Court on 9-11-1983.2. The said suit O.S. No. 71 of 1968 was filed by one Paramayammal, mother of the appellant herein, for a declaration that the ag...
R. Mathivanan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR351(Mad)
Shivappa, J. 1. The petitioners in these petitions are seeking for quashing of the proceedings launched against them under sections 276C(1)(i) and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that they had attempted to evade the tax and also made false verification in the return filed for the assessment years. 2. The contentions are that there was no proposal from the assessing authority for according sanction for prosecution by the Commissioner and even if there is a sanction, the same is not in accordance with law and there is no application of mind. 3. This court in V. Gopal v. Asst. CIT : [1994]207ITR971(Mad) has held that sanction by the Commissioner must be only on a proposal submitted to him is not tenable. It has been further held that there is no requirement that such a sanction can be given only on the initiation of proposal by some other agency. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The order of sanction is a matter...
Chinni Mohan Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)132CTR(Mad)440; [1996]217ITR269(Mad)
Shivappa, J. 1. The petitioner is seeking for quashing of a proceeding in E. O. C. C. No. 115 of 1986 on the file of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate E. O. II, Madras. The allegation against the petitioner is that he induced the first accused in making and telling such statements and declarations, which he knew to be false and did not believe to be true and thereby committed the offence under the IT Act, 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the decision of this Court reported in Navarathna, Navarathna & Co. vs. State 1987 LW (Crl) 326, wherein the auditor prepared the return and sent it to the client for signature and there it was not a case of abetting or inducing to tell false statement. Therefore, that has no application to the facts of the present case. The averments made are matters of evidence. Whether there was inducement, if so what was the part played by him are all matters of fact to be decided in trial. I see no ground to quash and accordin...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Visalakshi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)488; [1996]217ITR282(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The two questions referred to the Court for opinion are whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the income of the estate of the deceased person subsequent to the date of death is assessable under s. 168 in the hands of the executor and whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in view of the application of s. 168 there is no scope for application of s. 26 and that the estate for the purpose of assessment under s. 168 is to be considered as a single estate without any right of co-ownership 2. Smt. P. Visalakshi and Smt. P. Savithri, two sisters, it is said inherited the estate of K. Periyaswamy (who died intestate on 28th Aug., 1975), along with four others including their mother, P. Balammal, their grandmother (mother of their father), Smt. K. Meenakshi, and two other sisters. Periyaswamy owned a building at Karur along with his partner, Sri K. ...
S. David Vs. St. Gabriels Higher Secondary School, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)IIMLJ291
Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a teacher in the services of the first respondent school. He submitted a letter on 21-10-1994 to the school authorities stating that on account of his physical weakness, he was unable to continue in service as a physical Education Teacher in the School and that therefore he may be permitted to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 31-1-1995. The said request of the petitioner was accepted by the first respondent school Authorities as could be seen from the letter dated 22-10-1994 sent by the Correspondent of the first respondent to the petitioner, wherein it was stated that' .... we accept your request for voluntary retirement with effect from 31-1-1995 ...' Before 31st January, 1995 arrived, the petitioner changed his mind and he again wrote a letter on 21-12-1994 to the school authorities (first respondent) stating that he recovered from his illness and regained his lost strength, that he is physically and medically fit enough...
K.M. Madhavakrishnan Vs. S.R. Swami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ127
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This case has a chequered history. Both parties are in Court fighting their litigation tooth and nail from the year 1968 onwards. On the first round of litigation, the suit O.S. No. 71 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, initiated by the appellant herein and her mother, ended in dismissal and Appeal No. 928 of 1975 filed by the appellant herein in this Court was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 5.2.1980 (K.M. Madhavakrishnan v. S.R. Sami : (1980)2MLJ398 . Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the unsuccessful plaintiff K.M. Madhavakrishnan filed Civil Appeal No. 1368 of 1980 before the Supreme Court. The same was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9.11.1983 under Ex.A.22. The first round of litigation was given a quietus by the judgment of the Supreme Court on 9.11.1983.2. The said suit O.S. No. 71 of 1968 was filed by one Paramayammal, mother of the appellant herein, for a declaration that the agreement of s...
Madras Bar Association and ors. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR240(Mad)
Raju, J.1. This batch of writ petitions involves for consideration a challenge to Circular No. 681 dt. 8th March, 1994 [printed at (1994) 206 ITR 299, issued by the CBDT, New Delhi. The impugned circular order is in the form of instructions and guidelines in regard to the applicability of the provisions of s. 194C of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), concerning deduction of income-tax at source in relation to certain categories of payments by specified classes of persons or institutions. The impugned circular further purports to withdraw the Board's Circular No. 86, dt. 29th May, 1972, [printed at (1972) 84 ITR 99, Circular No. 93, dt. 26th Sept., 1972 [printed at (1972) 86 ITR 30 and paragraph 11 of Circular No. 108 dt. 20th March, 1973, and reiterates the Board Circular No. 558 dt. 28th March, 1990 [printed at (1990) 183 ITR 158. 2. The challenge is made to the impugned circular by different classes of persons. Apart from an advocate who in his individual capac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »