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.
R.S. Munirajan Vs. Jaya theatre and 5 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(1)CTC587
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in I.A. No. 393 of 1992 filed in O.S. No. 105 of 1991. The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit property. The plaint was filed on 17.3.1992 and the same was returned for complying with certain defects on 8.6.1992. The plaint was re-presented with a delay of 102 days. According to the plaintiff the reason for the delay is that the plaint and other connected papers got mixed up with other case bundles and could not be traced and represented in time. Hence it was submitted that the delay is due to the above said bona fide fact. However, the delay was not condoned. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff.2. Learned senior counsel Mr. G. Subrmaniam appearing for Mr. R. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the plaint was returned with a direction to re- presen...
Coats Viyella India Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Customs and Central Exci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC61
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.2.1995 passed in W.M.P. No. 32159/94 filed in W.P. No. 21140/94, vacating the interim order passed on 7.2.1995. This is a case, in which there is an order passed by the Appellate Collector, allowing the case of the appellant, that the goods manufactured by the appellant would fall within the purview of heading 5502 and not within the classification under heading 5606, as contended by the department. Thus the case of the petitioner that the goods manufactured by it would fall within the heading 5502 has been accepted. It is true that the department has gone on appeal before the CEGAT, as it feels aggrieved as to the classification accepted by the Appellate Collector that the goods manufactured by the appellant, fall under the heading 5502 is not correct and according to them they fall under the heading 5506. The petitioner/appellant has also gone on appeal, it is not known on what basis the appellant could have gone ...
S. Kannan Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(50)ECC82
Srinivasan, J.1. The common contention in these two appeals is that the show cause notice issued to the appellant in two cases is not valid inasmuch as it has been issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Special Investigation Branch. According to the appellant, the authority who is entitled to adjudicate on confiscation and penalty, is the Collector of Customs as the value of the goods in both the cases is much more than Rs. 50 lakhs. Our attention is drawn to Section 122 of the Customs Act, which is in the following terms:--Adjudication of confiscation and penalties:--In every case under this Chapter in which anything is liable to confiscation or any person is liable to a penalty, such confiscation or penalty may be adjudged,--(a) Without limit, by a Collector of Customs or a Deputy Collector of Customs;(b) Where the value of the goods liable to confiscation does not exceed (fifty thousand rupees), by an Assistant Collector of Customs;(c) Where the value of the goods liable to c...
A. StalIn Alias Stanles Vs. Ansa Alias Ansammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ312
N. Arumugham, J.1. The unsuccessful husband before the learned Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in O.P. No. 89 of 1989 aggrieved by its order dated 18.11.1991. is the appellant herein, canvassing the correctness and legality of the order passed by learned trial Judge in the above case, rejecting the claim of the appellant to declare that the marriage held between him and the respondent herein on 24.10.1988 was null and void on the ground of insanity as provided under Section 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.2. The appellant and the respondent being Christians by religion got their marriage performed in accordance with the caste and religious custom on 24.10.1988 in the 'Dhusnavis' Church of Tuticorin, in the presence of their respective relatives. It was the case of the appellant that after the marriage, the parents of the respondent took her to their residence under the pretext of performing certain poojas to get the rituals based on sentimentalities and assured to sent her...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. E.i.D. Parry Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR489(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. The instant proceedings show how a mistake which is committed either intentionally or unintentionally, can cause injury to public interest and attempts to rectify the mistake can result in protracted litigations and end in a blind. The questions received on reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A' are : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not correct in applying the provisions of section 154 to disallow a sum of Rs. 1,42,659 under section 37(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in withdrawing the relief of Rs. 4,60,505 also allowed under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not correct in assessing a sum of Rs. 1,09,950 as profits under section 41(1) in the proceedings made under section 154 3. Whether,...
Ramaswamy and Another Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR205(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following two questions of law said to arise out of the common order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1971-72 for our opinion under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :'(1) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the partition of the family took place on November 18, 1974, and not on January 10, 1967, as contended by the applicant?(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the requirement of section 20 of the Wealth-tax Act is not satisfied?'2. The assessees are the legal heirs of the late B. Muthukumarappa Reddiar. Muthukumarappa Reddiar's brother, Purushothamma Reddiar, filed a suit for partition in C.S. No. 14 of 1967 on the file of the High Court at Madras in respect of various items of properties on January 10, 1967, claiming partition of his 50 per cent. share in the properties. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on November 6, 1968. The...
Tube Suppliers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR596(Mad)
Thanikkachalam J.1. In pursuance of the direction of this court, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was night in holding that the reopening of the assessment is valid ?' 2. The assessee carried on a business in refractory works to manufacture fire bricks and also business in lamp factory and collapsible tubes. The Income-tax Officer allowed long-term capital loss of Rs. 331 arising from the sale of land relating to lamp works and loss of Rs. 42,513 under section 32(1)(iii) arising on the sale of building used for the business of collapsible tubes while computing the total income for the assessment year 1973-74. On an information obtained from the Revenue audit that the business in respect of which losses were allowed had been closed long back and, therefore, the set off of business was not proper, the Income tax Off...
M. Jagadeeswara Pandian Vs. the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(50)ECC115
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, we have directed the learned Government Advocate to take notice for the respondents. Accordingly, we have heard the appeal itself for final disposal.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant sought for quashing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Dindigul, in R.O.C. No. 8608/95/J3 dated 30th January, 1995 suspending the I.M.F.L. Licence 8/93-94 temporarily for a period of 90 days in exercise of the power under Rule 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).3. The contention raised before us is that as per Rule 19(2) of the Rules, reasons are required to be furnished within 5 days from the date of suspension. As no reasons are furnished within 5 days, the order of suspension should fall to the ground.4. Rule 19(2) of the Rules reads thus:--Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the licensing authority may temporarily suspend the lice...
Manoj Kumar Sonthalia Vs. Vivek Goenka and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ622
Mishra, J.1. The appellant in O.S.A. Nos. 82 to 88 of 1993 has moved the petition, seeking inter alia to modify our order and judgment dated 27.7.1994 in the said appeals in terms of the compromise memorandum in C.S. Nos. 1246 and 1247 of 1992 and Petitions to implead Sterling Newspaper Limited, Bharatkatha Publications Private Limited and Bharatkatha Offset Private Limited as defendants in C.S. No. 1246 of 1992, to pass an order to transfer the suit C.S. Nos. 1246 and 1247 of 1992 from the file of the Original Side to the file of the Appellate Side for the purpose of recording the compromise. The last prayer, which is also covered by separate petitions filed on behalf of the appellant in the suits is wholly uncalled for and should not have been made at all. The prayer to implead Sterling Newspaper Limited, Bharatkatha Publications Private Limited and Bharakatha Offset Private Limited as defendants 15 to 17 in the suits is also not warranted. We have however to see in the instant proce...
M. Sethu Vs. the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1995Mad238
ORDERK. A. Swami, C. J. 1. The learned single Judge has dismissed the appeal (A. S. No. 828/81) on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainable as it has been filed without issuing notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure. It may be pointed out that the suit has been filed under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for filing such a suit, no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure need be issued, because Section 70 of the Act itself specifically provides-'70(1)-- Any party aggrieved and an order passed by the Commissioner- (i) under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 69 and relating to any of the matters specified in Section 63, Section 64 orSection 67; or (iii) under Section 63, Section 64 or Section 67 read with sub-section (1)(a), subsection 1(a)(2) or 4(a) of Section 22 or under Section 65; made within ninety days from the date of the receipt of such order by him, in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »