Chennai Court June 1995 Judgments
M. Lakshmanan Vs. the Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC396
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to call for the records of the order bearing B3/9964.A/93 dated 10.5.1995. on the file of the Second Respondent and quash the same. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been in occupation of the Plot No. 592, 29th Cross Street, Indira Nagar Madras - 20 by trespassing the same. It is the admitted case that the petitioner is not in possession of any authorised order from the Housing Board for occupation of the said Plot. When the authorities issued notice for eviction, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 3516 of 1995 before this Court. This Court has passed an order that the respondents are entitled to evict the petitioner, after giving an opportunity. Accordingly, after the disposal of the writ Petition, the petitioner was given an opportunity and the petitioner has submitted the explanation.2. In the explanation, the petitioner has stated that he had been in possession of the said plot for the past twenty years ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Vs. Krishnaveni and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Mad94
1. The first defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below. Both the courts below have dismissed suit for injunction. But the first defendant has preferred this Second Appeal only with reference to the dismissal of his cross-objection filed when the matter was before the first appellate court in A. S. No. 25 of 1991 filed by the plaintiffs. The suit has been concurrently dismissed by the courts below on the ground that the plaintiffs are the trespassers andhence as trespassers are they are not entitled to get thrinjimction as prayed for. No doubt with reference to the abovesaid trespass, the trial court held in its earlier part of the judgment that there was a trespass or encroachment by the plaintiffs to the extent of one foot. But the trial court in the latter part of its judgment observed that the said encroachment was five inches. Aggrieved by the abovesaid observation of the trial court regarding the extent of the encroachmen...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. Official Assignee, High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas642(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. 1. The question arises for consideration in these cases is whether under section 52(2)(c) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (Act III of 1909), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', a creditor who claims hypothecation of machinery and movables of the insolvent, can claim priority creditor and also seek a direction from the court for delivery of possession of such machinery and movables to him. 2. An insolvency petition in Petition No. 58 of 1986 was filed by P.K. Pattabhiraman and his wife, P. Kantha. The husband was carrying on business under the name and style of 'Sri Prosperity Industries' while the wide was carrying on business under the name and style of 'Quality Metal Products'. In the joint petition for adjudication they disclosed on overall joint liability of Rs. 1,34,59,539.36. The assets comprised immovable properties as well as machinery and stock-in-trade available in the business premises for both the businesses. The order of adjudication was made on Aug...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chandrakant M. Tolia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR438(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for our opinion under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) for the asst. yrs. 1964-65 and 1965-66? 2. Whether the Tribunal's finding that there was no fraud, gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee is based on valid materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?' 2. These tax cases relate to the asst. yrs. 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessee (now deceased) was a partner in four firms, viz., (1) C. J. Sheth & Co., Madras; which was carrying on business as general merchants and in pharmaceuticals; (2) Rathod Trading Co., Madras; (3) Pacoda Metal Industries, and (4) C. J. Sheth & Co., Bangalore. Besides, he was also carrying on agency business and derived income by...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.L.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar (Deceased) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR161(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions given by this court, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 56,250 representing the amount forgone by the assessee as business loss ?'2. In the present case, the Tribunal held that the income from the amount advanced to Alagappa Mills should be considered as business income in the case of R.M. Meenakshisundaram, the assessee's son, and, therefore, the income earned by the assessee by way of money-lending should also be considered as business income, A similar question came up for consideration before this court in the case of the assessee's son, R.M. Meenakshisundaram, wherein this court held as under, in CIT v. R.M. Meenakshisundaram : [1995]212ITR220(Mad) (headnote) :'Held, that the monies rece...
Tag this Judgment!Punniakoti Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: 1995CriLJ4139
Janarthanam, J.1. The appellant was the accused in S.C. No. 14 of 1987 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. He was found guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to.2. Brief facts are :- (a) There is a housing complex at door No. 39, Srinivasa Achari Street, Perambur, Madras. In the said complex, there are about twenty houses. The accused, along with his brother Samraj (since deceased) and his parents was residing at door No. 6. At Door No. 4, one Savithiri had been residing, along with her husband, by name Devaraj and her children. At Door No. 5, her sister by name Muniammal (P.W. 4) had been residing. P.W. 1 is the brother of the said Devaraj and he had also been residing, alongwith the family members of P.W. 4, P.W. 1 and the deceased, it is said, were employed as tinkers in a steel company. (b) T...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late T.S. Srinivasa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR129(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In this tax case petition, the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, requests this court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holdingthat the property gifted by the deceased to Vasan Charitable Trust is hotchargeable to estate duty in the hands of the accountable person as propertypassing on the death of the deceased ?'2. One Sri T.S. Srinivasa Iyer (S.S. Vasan) died on August 26, 1969. During his lifetime, he had created a trust called 'Vasan Charitable Trust' under a deed dated April 27, 1968. Initially, the corpus consisted of Rs. 15,000 which the deceased settled on the trust. The trustees were the settlor, his wife and the settlor's son and his wife. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu (Rep. by Commr. Agrl. I.T.) Vs. Harrisons Malayala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1995
Reported in: [1996]218ITR121(Mad)
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. The question for consideration in this case is as to whether the expenditure incurred on the payment of gratuity by the company can be deductible for the purpose of Section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Section 5(e) of the Act is as follows :'5. Computation of agricultural income. -- The agricultural income of a person shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely :-- (a) Any sums paid in the previous year on account of land revenue due to the Government, local rates and cesses and municipal taxes in respect of land ; (b) any rent paid in the previous year to the landlord or superior landlord, as the case may be, in respect of the land from which the agricultural income is derived ; (c) any expenses incurred in the previous year on the maintenance of any protective work constructed for the benefit of the land from which the agricultural income is derived ; Explanation. -- 'Mainten...
Tag this Judgment!B. Sukumaran Vs. the Deputy General Manager, Airports Authority of Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ510
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ of direction, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent by which he was transferred from the present place of employment to New Delhi. The order is dated 7.4.1994.2. The relevant facts are as follows:The petitioner is an employee of the Airports Authority of India, a State as defined under Article of the Constitution. He joined the International Airports Authority of India on 4.1.1973 as Assistant Grade -HI. Later oh he was promoted as Assistant Grade- II and subsequently as Assistant Grade - I. He was further promoted as Cargo Superintendent on 24.12.1986. It is stated that in Airports Authority of India, Group B Services consist of Officers from Assistant Manager level and unionised cadre like Chargeman, Housekeeping Supervisors, Cargo Superintendent, etc. It is stated that since the petitioner is placed in the Unionised cadre, the incumbent of t...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan R. Bhatijha and anr. Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcement Direc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1995
Reported in: 1995(2)CTC230
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Both the Contempt Applications were filed Under Sections 10 to 12 of the contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court and for disobeying the order of this Court dated 3.5.1994 in W.M.P.Nos. 11872 and 11973 of 1994 in W.P.Nos. 7760 and 7761 of 1994.2. According to the petitioners, they were implicated in an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act and their place of business and residence were raided by the authorities on 21.1.1994 and Indian currency worth Rs. 2,55,000/- was seized by the officials of the 1st respondent. The petitioners would submit that the seizure was without justification since the amount is duly accounded for in the books of accounts. The authorities have also recorded statements from the petitioners on 21.1.1994, 22.1.1994 and 27.1.1994. The petitioners, thereafter, sent letters to the respondents requesting them to furnish with copies of such statements but the respondents replied that...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »