Chennai Court May 1995 Judgments
M/S. Industrial Chemicals and Manomers Limited, Tirunelveli Vs. State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad4; 1995(2)CTC80
ORDER1. This writ petition is filed by one of the Directors of the Petitioner-Company to quash the order of the second respondent dated 20-3-1995 whereby it demanded an amount of nearly Rs. 19,75,000/-, being the minimum monthly charges for the period from 1-1-1990 to 7-4-1992.2. The grounds urged to quash the said order, that the petitioner's predecessor, namely, Industrial Chemicals and Manomers Limited (ICL) was manufacturing Calcium Carbide, and for the said purpose, it consumed electricity supplied by the second respondent. It is stated that the said company started functioning in 1960 and the operation of the company started declining from the year 1982-83 onwards due to powercuts, increase in powertariff, etc. Since manufacturing of Calcium Carbide involves power intensive process, there was steady decline in the capacity utilisation. Consequently, the said Company became sick and was declared as sick industrial company within the meaning of sick Industrial Companies (Special Pr...
Tag this Judgment!P. Veeraswami Naidu (Died) and Another Vs. Pushpammal and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad131
ORDERA. R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The short facts which are relevant for the purpose of the disposal of these appeals are as follows:-- The appellant Veeraswami Naidu instituted O.S. No. 28 of 1975 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chengleput, for the relief of cancellation of thesaledeed dated 19-7-1971 executed by him in favour of the 1st respondent Pushpammai and for granting a permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent Pushpammai, her agents, servants etc., from interfering with the possession of the appellant Veeraswami Naidu or in the alternative granting a decree for possession of the suit properties from the 1st repsondent Pushpammai. According to the appellant Veeraswami Naidu, the sale deed had been obtained from him under misrepresentation and that it was only intended to be a mortgage deed and thereby a fraud had been committed on him. The appellant would aver that he is the owner of the properties described in the schedule to the plaint, that he leased out the same to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chellathurai Nadar Vs. Ramaswami Pillai and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad143; 1997(1)CTC38
ORDER1. This revision is against the orders passed by the District Judge, Nagercoil dated 25-3-1988 in A.S. No. 63/1983 preferred against the order passed by the Sub-Judge, in I.P. No. 6 of 1980.2. The petitioner's case is as follows: The petitioners filed a petition under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to adjudge the first respondent as an insolvent, contending that the first respondent who has borrowed Rs. 100/- from the petitioner on a promissory note had committed an act of insolvency on 25-8-1979 by entering into an agreement of sale of the 8th respondent. The first respondent has borrowed to the tune of Rupees 48,230-50/- under various respondents 2 to 7. The property for which he had entered in to an agreement is the only property owned by him. The 5th and 6th respondents have filed suits against the first respondent for the recovery of the amounts due to them under promissory notes. The 4th respondent has been transposed as the second petitioner after the death of t...
Tag this Judgment!Kannu Reddiar Vs. T. Palanirajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ118
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 579 of 1984 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant in this, appeal.2. The suit was initially filed by one P. Nirmala as an indigent person in O.P. No. 46 of 1983. The said P. Nirmala is the wife of the 1st respondent and mother of respondents 2 to 5. Leave was granted to her to sue as an indigent person. P. Nirmala died before the suit was taken on file. Hence, her legal representatives viz., her husband and four children, who are the respondents herein, were brought on record in O.P. No. 46 of 1983 itself. The respondents herein also sought for permission to sue as indigent persons. Leave was granted to them also to sue as indigent persons. Thereupon, O.P. No. 46 of 1983 was converted as O.S. No. 579 of 1984.3. The suit was prosecuted by the plaintiffs on the following pleadings. The deceased plaintiff Nirmala wanted to start a bus body building industry under the name and style of M/s. Cholan ...
Tag this Judgment!Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Maxwell Dyes and C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-1995
Reported in: [1996]85CompCas79(Mad)
Govardhan, J. (Application No. 7151 of 1994) 1. The deponent is the company secretary of the applicant. On September 7, 1994, this court passed an order in O. A. No. 849 and 850 of 1994 in the suit C. S. No. 1128 of 1994 and O. A. Nos. 855 and 856 of the 1994 in C. S. No. 1132 of 1994 directing that the annual general meeting of the applicant-company as scheduled would go on with all the resolutions listed for consideration excepting resolutions Nos. 10 to 12. A transfer petition was earlier filed by the applicant in the Supreme Court seeking the transfer of certain suits including this suit to the Delhi High Court or any other High Court. When the above application came up for hearing on September 6, 1994, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India directed that the petition be posted for hearing on September 9, 1994. On September 9, 1994, the Supreme Court passed an order permitting the first applicant-company to hold the annual general meeting on September 12, 1994, and permitted the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Cholamandalam Software Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, I Add ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC54
ORDER1. This writ petition con-dng on for hearing on Thursday, January 12, 1995, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated February 19, 1993, and made herein and the counter affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the order in I.D. Nos. 813 to 827 of 1989 dated September 25, 1992, on the file of the Ist Respondent comprised in the return of the respondent to the writ made by the High court, and upon bearing the arguments of Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate for Mls. T.S. Gopalan, P. Ibrahim Kalifulla and P. Ravindran, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. T. Fenn Waiter, Advocate for the Respondents 3 to 17 and the second respondent not appearing in person or by Advocate and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following Order : This petition is directed against the common award dated September 25, 1992 made by the First Additional Labour Court, Madras in I. D. No. 813 to 82...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-13-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR651(Mad)
1. In pursuance of the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 139 of 1981, dated October 27, 1981, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law is referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,32,84 representing the interest from London brokers, other interest and miscellaneous receipts should be treated as income derived from shipping business eligible for relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows : The reference application relates to the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee, South India Shipping Corporation Limited, is a public limited company carrying on shipping business and it is a resident shipping company. In computing the relief under section 80J for the assessment year 1972-7...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran Vs. the Nagercoil Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-13-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC130; (1995)IIMLJ342
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The Petitioner in this CMP has filed the suit in O.S.No. 200 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Nagercoil against the respondent herein praying for the relief of declaration of his leasehold right over the plaint scheduled property and consequential relief of injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent auctioned the leasehold right of the plaint scheduled property for a period of one year from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993 for the financial year 1992-93. The petitioner participated in the said auction and he was the highest bidder. As the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 10,92,000/- the lease was confirmed by the Municipal Council in favour of the plaintiff. Though the annual lease amount was for Rs. 10,92,000/- the Municipality collected the amount as monthly rent from the petitioner. After the confirmation the petitioner was asked to sign in a lease deed prepared by the respondent and that the petitioner was directed to pay four months rent a...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Nalina Ramalakshmi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1995
Reported in: [1995]55ITD1(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri J. G. Pendse, Accountant Member - These appeals by the assessees arise out of the separate common orders dated 16-11-1994 of the CIT(A), Madurai. For the sake of convenience the appeals are heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. The assessees are non-resident. They are partners in two firms namely Messrs. Ramalakshmi Mills and M/s. Gowrishankar Screws. For the asst. years 1991-92 and 1992-93 the assessees derived share income of Rs. 38,546 and Rs. 263 respectively from M/s. Ramalakshmi Mills and Rs. 1,11,079 and Rs. 1,24,143 respectively for the asst. years 1991-92 and 1992-93 from M/s. Ramalakshmi Mills for the asst. years under consideration from M/s. Gowrishankar Screws. The assessees did not include the relevant share income in their returns. However, in the accompanying statements the fact that they were partners in the above firms and their share income were included and it was contended that the share income was not included on the ground that the tax ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Venugopal Naidu (Died) and 4 ors. Vs. Krishnamurthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC78
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The appellant purchased the property from the second respondent herein who is the judgment-debtor on 6.3.80. The first responded decree holder, had obtained the decree against the second respondent in O.S.8501/71. He filed E.P.1458/75 for execution of the said decree. In the E.P. No. 10.12.75 the attachment of the properties under dispute was ordered. Subsequently on 29.6.77 the said E.P. was closed with the direction that the attachment should continue. Later on, the first respondent filed E.P.72/82. In view of the direction to continue the attachment in the order dated 29.6.77, the attachment is deemed to be continued in this E.P. also. The E.P.72/82 was dismissed for default on 23.2.92, without any direction for continuation of the order of attachment, subsequently, the first respondent filed E.P.2032/83 and brought the properties for sale. In this E.P. the appellant has filed the claim petition stating that the appellant had purchased the property on 6.3.80 wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »