Chennai Court September 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.
Lucas Tvs Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: (1996)131CTR(Mad)238; [1996]220ITR557(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. Heard. Both the counsel agreed that in this tax case filed under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the question referred to us : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of rule 1(viii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, in computing the chargeable profits under the said Act and the Rules made thereunder, the assessee-company deriving income by way of dividends from another Indian company is entitled to the exclusion of only the net dividend amount received after reducing from the gross dividend relief granted under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ' should be answered in the affirmative, and that this case is covered against the assessee-petitioner by the judgment of this court dated June 19, 1986, made in T.C. Nos. 136 and 137 of 1979 (CIT v. Virudhunagar Textiles Mills Ltd.) Accordingly, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs. ...
Arumugam and anr. Vs. Sri. Dharmapuram Mutt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC90
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Strkali dated 27.11.1980 in O.S. No. 95 of 1977.2. The suit O.S. No. 95 of 1977 was filed by the respondent Mutt praying for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit, properties by the plaintiff, and in the alternative if it is found by the Court that the plaintiff was not in possession on the date of the suit for recovery of possession. The claim of the plaintiff in substance was that the suit properties have not been leased out to anyone and the defendants were not in possession of the suit properties as tenants much less cultivating tenants. The defendants have filed a written statement and it was contended that the suit properties have been let out to the first defendant's father for planting and rearing fruit...
P. Ponnammal and ors. Vs. Dr. M.G.R. Medical University and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ532
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in R.No.AC-1 (3)/ 3976/95, dated 9.3.1995 and quash the same, and further, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for Part I and Part II Examinations of the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in 1995 November Examination along with the regular batch of the 1994-95 First Year M.B.B.S.3. Briefly stated, the facts leading to this writ petition are the following:The petitioners are the students of First Year M.B.B.S. admitted to 1994-95 Session. They contend that had the respondents followed the reservation of 50% for reserved categories at the time of regular admission, as held by the Supreme Court in Mandal case, all the petitioners herein could have been admitted and joined along with the other regular students. The classes for First Year M.B.B.S. star...
V. Pethaperumal and Others Vs. Syndicate Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas444(Mad); (1995)IIMLJ660
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Notice of motion was ordered returnable by four weeks on March 10, 1995. On service of notice the respondent entered appearance through counsel. 2.By consent of both the parties the main revision itself is taken up for final hearing. 3.The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. The respondent filed O.S. No. 180 of 1991 against the petitioners for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage. The trial court passed a preliminary decree on January 14, 1992, on the basis of a joint endorsement made. According to the petitioners, they came to know of the decree that there were some clerical errors, viz., the subsequent interest is charged on the aggregate suit claim instead of the principal sum. Under those circumstances, they moved an application under section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for amending the decree on the basis of section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. The application was resisted by the respondent-bank. The learned Subordinate J...
Muniandi and Another Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ1842
Janarthanam, J. 1. In respect of an occurrence that took place at 7 a.m. on 6-9-1984 at Alagianambiapuram, which lies within the jurisdiction of Panagudi police station, leading to the murders of one Uchimahali (deceased 1) and another Panchavarnam (Deceased 2), the wheels of investigation proceeded on the basis of Exhibit P. 1 complaint given by P.W. 1, registered as a case of suspicious deaths in Crime No. 296/84 and ultimately, a final report under S. 173(2), Cr. P.C. had been filed by P.W. 12, the Inspector of Police, Valliyur, before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nanguneri on 10-6-1985 for alleged offences under Ss. 147, 149 and 302, IPC as against accused 1 to 18. 2. The final report so filed had been taken on file as P.R. Case No. 20 of 1985 as against accused 1 to 18 and all copies of documents, on the appearance of the accused, had been given to them under S. 207, Cr. P.C. Thereafter, on 17-7-1985, it transpired that one of the accused, namely, accused 56, was aged 17 ...
Ranganathan Vs. Veerapandian and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: 1996CriLJ540
ORDER1. Petitioner Ranganathan, examined P. W. 15 before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalput, in Sessions Case No. 225 of 1988, father of deceased by name Mandothari, has come forward with this revision, challenging the propriety and legality of the Judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalput, in C.A. No. 11 of 1990 on 25-1-1991, setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Chengalput, and acquitting the respondents 1 to 3 herein of all the charges. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) I.P.C. before the trial Court. On finding the respondents 1 to 3 accused guilty of the charges, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for ...
R.K. Swamy Advertising Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR507(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. This tax case by the assessee is under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961, and relates to the asst. yr. 1981-82. The question referred to us is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that computation of disallowance under r. 6D should not be restricted to the expenditure incurred during the period of travel alone ?' 2. But the question is not happily worded. After the word 'incurred' in the abovesaid question, the expression 'for travel alone' must be there, and not 'during the period of travel alone'. This is so because, the contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that hotel expenses during travel would not come under r. 6D at all, and only travel expenses would be covered under r. 6D. 3. There is absolutely no merit in the abovesaid contention. Not only the above referred to r. 6D of the IT Rules, 1962, but the enactment itself in s. 37(3) specifically says that notwithstanding s. 37(1) with ...
Lakshmi Shanmugham Vs. P.R. Shanmugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: II(1996)DMC21; (1996)IMLJ271
S.S. Subramani, J.1. In both these appeals, wife is the appellant.2. O.P. No. 254 of 1991 was filed by the wife on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, for restitution of conjugal rights. That was filed on 2.8.1991. Counter was filed by the husband on 5.2.1992. Immediately thereafter, husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 19 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kumbakonam on 31.3.1992. The wife seems to have filed an application for transfer in view of the pendency of O.P. 254 of 1991 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur as Tr. O.P. No. 61 of 1992. The District Court allowed the petition and H.M.O.P. No. 19 of 1992 was transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur, where it was re-numbered as P.P. No. 59 of 1992. It was thereafter the wife filed a counter in O.P. No. 59 of 19.11.19923. I have stated the dates of filing of petitions and counter-affidavits since they have some relevance when I deal with the matter regarding the merits of the case.4. I...
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Mrs. V. Vaijayanthimala and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC724
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This suit is filed by a Nationalised Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 74,81,271.40P. together with interest at 25% per annum with quarterly rests by sale of the mortgage properties and also personally from the defendants.2. The facts which are not disputed are, that the first defendant availed financial assistance from the Bank of Tamil Nadu which is now merged with the plaintiff-Bank. It is said that as per three financial facilities of Rs. 5,50,000 Rs. 7,50,000 and Rs. 1,77,000 amounts were due from the defendants. It is also said that an equitable mortgage has been created by deposit of title deeds by defendants 2 and 3. The facilities were availed for construction of a cinema theatre and for purchase of machineries for the same. It is also averred that the contract rate of interest was 19 1/2% per annum with quarterly rests. Since the Bank is supervised and controlled by the Reserve Bank of India, they are bound to implement the rates of interest as revis...
V. Pethaperumal and ors. Vs. Syndicate Bank Represented by Its Princip ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ660
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Notice of motion was ordered returnable by four weeks on 10.3.1995. On service of notice the respondent entered appearance through counsel.2. By consent of both parties the main revision itself is taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. The respondent filed O.S. No. 180 of 1991 against the petitioners for recovery of money on the basis of a mortgage. The trial court passed a preliminary decree on 14.1.1992 on the basis of a joint endorsement made. According to the petitioners, they came to know of the decree that there were some clerical errors, viz., the subsequent interest is charged on the aggregate suit claim instead of the principal sum. Under those circumstances, they moved an application under Section 152, C.P.C. for amending the decree on the basis of Section 34, C.P.C. The application was resisted by the respondent/ bank. Learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners herein fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »