Chennai Court April 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.
Palaniswamy Vs. Sarojini
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC122
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioner before the courts below is the appellant in both the appeals. The appellant had filed O.P. Nos. 193 of 1981 and 164 of 1982 for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent. O.P. No. 193 of 1981 was filed on the ground of cruelty. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant and respondent lived together for six years after the marriage as husband and wife. They do not have any child. One medical examination, the medical report reveals that the respondent may not bear any child. Thereafter misunderstanding arose between them and the respondent treated the appellant with utmost cruelty in all possible ways and it is not possible for the appellant to live with the respondent.2. During the pendency of this O.P. No. 193 of 1981, the appellant had filed another O.P. No. 164 of 1982 against the respondent for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion alleging that the respondent had left the marital home for more than two...
The K.C.P. Limited Vs. the Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Cour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ401
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner Management challenging the Order, dated 28.9.1993 made by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 611 of 1993, whereunder the Writ Petition No. 611 of 1993 filed by the appellant challenging the order of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 28.12.1992 in I.D. No. 708 of 1992, refusing to record and pass an Award in terms of the Memorandum of Settlement, dated 14.12.1992 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and for a consequent direction to the first respondent- Labour Court to pass an Award in term of the Memorandum of Settlement, came to be rejected by the learned Judge.2. The relevant facts necessary for a proper understanding and adjudication of the issues raised before us need be mentioned at the forefront. During September, 1990, the issue for payment of bonus for the year 1989-90 came up for consideration and the appellant Management appears to have ...
Anna Transport Corporation Limited Vs. N. Ramasamy, Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad82
ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the timing conference convened by the 2nd respondent. That conference was convened pursuant to the direction given by this Court in a writ petition filed by the 1st respondent to implement the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which has granted variation of the permit held by the 1st respondent.2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Tribunal having been made under the provisions of the repealed enactment, the 1st respondent is bound to obtain counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other District and on account of variation, the route has now become a inter-district route. Counsel, however, fairly pointed out that a learned single Judge of this Court has held in W.P. 18668 of 1992 that the provisions of the old Act are not applicable and that the permit will be governed by the provisions of the new Act after the new Act came into force. It was, however, submitted that the petitioner has fil...
N. Jagan and Another Vs. Investment Trust of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas75(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. These appeals are against orders passed by the single judge sitting on the original side, in applications filed in two suits. The plaintiff in each suit is a shareholder in the defendant-company, each owning about 150 shares. In terms of percentage, it is pointed out that the total of 300 shares held by the two plaintiffs comes to 0.0014 per cent. The plaintiffs have, in the suits, challenged two resolutions passed by the company at the extraordinary general meeting held on May 9, 1994. O. A. No. 592 of 1994 in C. S. No. 705 of 1994 and O. A. No. 591 of 1994 in C. S. No. 1006 of 1994 are for injunction restraining the defendant from giving effect to resolutions Nos. 1 and 2 passed at the said meeting in any manner or acting in pursuance thereof. O. As. Nos. 1006 and 1007 of 1994 are for injunction restraining the defendant from issuing 21,79,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each at a premium of Rs. 30 per share to the equity shareholders on rights basis as announced by the...
V. Guruviah Naidu and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR156(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. This reference, at the instance of the assessee, has posed three questions : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the expenditure incurred by it on transport of goods and marine insurance (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in its interpretation of s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) as intending a wider net of exclusion for the latter two heads than for the former (3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the phrase 'wherever incurred' occurring in s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) applied to expenditure incurred on the carriage of goods outside India as also on the insurance of goods while in transit ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm. It exported leather goods. It claimed export markets development allowance for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and repeated the claim for the following assessment years including the asst. yr. 19976-77. The ITO declined to allo...
V. Guruviah Naidu and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1995
Reported in: (1996)130CTR(Mad)189
MISHRA, J. :This reference, at the instance of the assessee, has posed three questions :'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the expenditure incurred by it on transport of goods and marine insurance ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in its interpretation of s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) as intending a wider net of exclusion for the latter two heads than for the former ?(3) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the phrase wherever incurred occurring in s. 35B(1)(b)(iii) applied to expenditure incurred on the carriage of goods outside India as also on the insurance of goods while in transit ?'2. The assessee is a registered firm. It exported leather goods. It claimed export markets development allowance for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and repeated the claim for the following assessment years including the asst. yr. 19976-77. The ITO declined to allow the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›