Chennai Court September 1995 Judgments
M. Ayyasamy Vs. the District Educational Officer, (Elementary Educatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ391
Raju, J.1. above writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 23.8.1995 in W.P. No. 8856 of 1995, whereunder the learned Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the third respondent herein has quashed the order of the first respondent in 3731/AG/95, dated 5.6.1995 and consequently, directed the State Government to nominate an Officer and pass appropriate orders as an interim, measure, according to Section 53-A(2) of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. To appreciate the nature of the disputes as also the grievance of the parties in the proceedings before us, it becomes necessary to advert to certain earlier factual details. There is no controversy over the position that the Sukangalpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Hindu Nadar Middle School Educational Society is an Association duly registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies' Registration Act with Registration No. 55 of 1984 and the scho...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kanthimathi and anr. Vs. Beatrie Xavier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ666
Thanikkachalam, J.1. The tenants are petitioners herein. The landlady filed a petition for eviction against the tenants under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), before the Rent Controller of Coimbatore. The landlady is residing at Hyderabad. The petition for eviction was filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and on the ground of acts of waste. The 1st respondent before the Rent Controller is the wife of 2nd respondent, both of them are tenants under the landlady, on a monthly rent of Rs. 120. The rent was paid upto March, 1977. Thereafter they did not pay the rent regularly to the landlady. In May, 1977, the 1st respondent requested the landlady to sell the petition premises and an agreement dated 4.5.1977 was entered into between them. Subsequently, the 1st respondent committed breach of the said agreement. The 1st respondent was not willing and ready to comply with the said a...
Tag this Judgment!Workmen Vs. Management of India Forge and Drop Stampings Ltd., and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1995
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2052]
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated January 10, 1994, in W.P. Nos. 618 and 2366 of 1990. 2. Writ petition No. 618 of 1990 has been filed by the management of India Forge and Drop Stampings Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the management'), seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated November 27, 1989, in I.D. No. 23 of 1984. 3. Writ Petition No. 2366 of 1990 has been filed by, the workmen represented by the secretary, India Forge and Drop Stampings Employees' Union (hereinafter referred as 'the union') seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the award dated November 27, 1989, in I.D. No. 23 of 1984 in so far as the Industrial Tribunal at Madras has denied the workers full backwages. 4. The Industrial Tribunal entertained the dispute on a reference made to it by the State Government, under section 10(1)(c)...
Tag this Judgment!G. Palani Vs. Smt. Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ174
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The plaintiff-decree - holder has preferred this civil revision petition against the order dated 14.2.1994 of the Execution Court below, in E.A. No. 1005 of 1993 in E.P. No. 2996 of 1989 in O.S. No. 4388 of 1988. The said execution application was filed by the judgment debtor defendant (respondent herein) praying for dismissal of the abovesaid E.P. No. 2996 of 1989. The said E.P. was filed by the plaintiff under 0.21, Rule 32, C.P.C. for execution of the decree dated 14.12.1988 for permanent injunction against possession interference, obtained by him in O.S. No. 4388 of 1988, by attachment of the defendant's property. The said decree was no doubt an ex parte decree obtained by the plaintiff, as tenant of the suit property under the defendant, in order to prevent forcible eviction by the defendant. It is represented that in the execution petition, in about October, 1992, counter was filed by the defendant and that even prior thereto, the abovesaid attachment was or...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sree Jayalakshmi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ605
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ of declaration that admission to the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. course for the academic year 1994-95 made under paragraph 3.5 (iii)(ii) of the Prospectus i.e., in the seats reserved for children of Ex-servicemen published on 24.10.1994 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to admit the petitioner in accordance with her merit in the vacant seats to be caused by such declaration.2. Originally there were only two respondents in the writ petition. Subsequently W.M.P. No. 2649 of 1995 was filed to implead the candidates selected in the category who were likely to be affected in the event of the writ petition being allowed, and as such respondents 3 to 7 were added.3. The facts which are considered necessary for the disposal of this writ petition, briefly stated, are the following:The petitioner applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year ...
Tag this Judgment!Metro General Credits Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR99(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This Tax Case Petition No. 3 of 1995 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is against the order dated September 17, 1994, of the Tribunal in R. A. No. 226/(Mds) of 1994 in I. T. A. No. 447/(Mds) of 1988. By the said order, the Tribunal rejected the said application, holding that the findings arrived at by it in the above I. T. A. do not give rise to any referable question of law. 2. According to the assessee, the following three questions are referable : '1. Whether the Tribunal is right in its view that the expenditure incurred by a finance company doing business in leasing and hire purchasing for raising share capital will not be allowable as a revenue expenditure 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in its view that money cannot be considered to be a stock-in-trade of a leasing and financing company 3. Whether the Tribunal is right in its view that the assessee being a leasing and financing company doing business with money as its assets and earnings profi...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Perianna Pillai (Deceased) (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR122(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The question of law which arises and which has been referred by the Income-tax Tribunal for the consideration of this court is question No. 2. The said question has been the subject-matter of our consideration and decision in Tax Cases Nos. 1463 and 1556 to 1560 of 1981, dated September 25, 1995 (M. Rangaswamy v. CWT : [1996]221ITR39(Mad) . There is no dispute before us that the ratio of the said decision squarely applies and governs the question raised in the above tax case. 2. Applying the ratio of the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the case before us and the question referred to this court, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee but in favour of the Revenue and hold that the entire coffee and tea bushes, apart from the two leaves and a bud of the tea bush and the berries of the coffee bush, do not fall within the expression 'growing crops' for exemption under section 5(1)(vii)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!M. Ramaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: (1996)136CTR(Mad)76; [1996]221ITR47(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. The question of law which arises and which has been referred by the Income-tax Tribunal for the consideration of this court is question No. 2. The said question has been the subject-matter of our consideration and decision in Tax Cases Nos. 1463 and 1556 to 1560 of 1981, dated September 25, 1995 (M. Rangaswamy v. CWT : [1996]221ITR39(Mad) . There is no dispute before us that the ratio of the said decision squarely applies and governs the question raised in the above tax case. 2. Applying the ratio of the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the case before us and the question referred to this court, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee, but in favour of the Revenue and hold that the entire coffee and tea bushes, apart from the two leaves and a bud of the tea bush and the berries of the coffee bush, do not fall within the expression 'growing crops' for exemption under section 5(1)(viiia) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. No costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Rangaswamy Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: [1996]221ITR39(Mad)
Raju J. 1. The above tax cases are by way of reference to this court from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), referring the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-individual is entitled to deduction under section 5(1)(iv)(a) in respect of the exempted asset, namely, agricultural land held by the firm in which the assessee is a partner, in computing the net wealth of the assessee (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire coffee and tea bushes fall within the expression 'growing crops' in section 5(1)(viiia) of the Act ?' 2. The facts and circumstances in which these questions arose and were referred to this court are almost similar, except perhaps that they relate to different assessees, assessment years and with reference to a different quantum of net wealth in ind...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Trading Corporation Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1995
Reported in: [2003]133STC529(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. A short question is involved in this tax case appeal by the assessee against the suo motu revisional order of the Joint Commissioner under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 holding that the assessee's turnover to the extent of Rs. 3,96,630.83 relating to 'nylon zip' would have to be taxed only under entry 145 of the First Schedule read with Section 3(2) of the Act and not under multi-point levy pursuant Section 3(1) of the Act. The said entry in relation to the assessment year in question, namely, 1980-81 run as follows :'Plastic articles at the point of first sale in the State--8 per cent'.Though the said turnover was originally assessed to tax at multi-point, the assessing authority by revised assessment brought it under the abovesaid entry 145. However, on appeal, the first appellate authority, gave relief to the assessee by holding that it would come under only multi-point levy. But subsequently by the impugned order, the Joint Commissioner s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »