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.
Kempraj Vs. Krishnappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ623
Raju, J.1. The plaintiff, who was successful in the trial court is the appellant in the above second appeal.2. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property bearing Door No. 364/A within the Ooty Municipal Limits belongs to him and that it has been leased out to the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are said to be the brothers of the first defendant. It is also stated has collapsed during the then unprecedented rains and floods at Ooty as a consequence of which only one room was remaining. Thereupon, the defendants were said to have attempted to put up a construction in the portion where the building had completely fallen down. It is stated that the defendants have no right to do so and consequently, it became necessary for the plaintiff to approach the trial court. In such circumstances, the suit O.S. No. 365 of 1978 was filed by the plaintiff in Sub Court, Nilgiris at Ootacamund, praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any construction in ...
R. K. Swamy Advertising Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1995
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)332
ABDUL HADI, J. :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 refer...
Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate and Another Vs. Hameed Jah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1995
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas262(Mad); 1996(53)ECC142; (1996)IMLJ260
Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single judge, dated August 30, 1993, in W.P. No. 16175 of 1993, whereunder the learned single judge has issued directions as hereunder, while finally disposing of the main writ petition, even at the stage of hearing for admission, on hearing counsel for the first respondent herein/writ petitioner : 2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the affidavit filed herein, without going into the merits of the case, I think it suffice to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's petition filed under section 52 of the Act for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount, on the merits and in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if the same has not been disposed of already. Till such time, the further proceedings before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in EOCC No. 309 of 1993 shall stand stayed...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1995
Reported in: [1995]216ITR455(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. In all these tax case references under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), one common question is involved (apart from certain other questions in one or the other of the said cases) and hence they are heard together. 2. Of these, one alone, viz., Tax Case No. 786 of 1986, is by the assessee since the Tribunal below therein held against the assessee on the abovesaid question. The other five tax case references are by the Revenue. The Tribunal, in the respective orders therein, held against the Revenue on the abovesaid question. 3. Tax Cases Nos. 491 and 492 of 1986 arising out of the same order dated May 8, 1985, of the Tribunal, in the appeal by the Revenue as well as cross-objection by the assessee, relate to the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee herein is the same as in Tax Case No. 786 of 1986, which relates to the assessment year 1979-80 and arises out of the order dated October 31, 1983, of the Tribunal. Tax Case...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC383; [1996]220ITR170(Mad)
Abdul Hadi J.1. All these tax case references under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, are preferred by the Revenue. They relate to different assessment years as mentioned below : (1) Tax Cases Nos. 1435 and 1436 of 1985 : 1974-75 (Both these tax cases arise out of the same common order of the Tribunal in two appeals before it, one by the assessee and another by the Revenue). (2) Tax Case No. 412 of 1986 : 1975-76 (3) Tax Case No. 401 of 1986 : 1977-78 (4) Tax Case No. 1133 of 1985 : 1978-79 (5) Tax Case No. 1134 of 1985 : 1979-80 (6) Tax Case No. 1135 of 1985 : 1980-81 In all these seven tax cases relating to the same assessee one common question is involved and hence, they are heard together. 2. The said common question is regarding the valuation for the purpose of wealth-tax assessment of the agricultural lands of the assessee, of an extent of 624.16 ordinary acres owned by the assessee, against which lands, proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arasan Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1995
Reported in: [1996]220ITR476(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question of law arising out of the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 1515/(Mds) of 1979, dated January 16, 1982, for the assessment year 1978-79 for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in facts and circumstances of the case, in holding that the interest received of Rs. 25,532 before the commencement of its business does not have the character of income liable for tax ?'2. The assessee is a private limited company incorporated on May 28, 1977, with the object of doing business in manufacture and sale of pyrotechnic aluminium powder. Its paid-up capital was Rs. 6.05 lakhs. The accounts were closed for the first time on October 31, 1978. It is common ground that during the entire year, the company was engaged in the process of erection of its plant and ma...
Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Temple, Represented by Its Executive Officer Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ29
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I), Madras, awarding a compensation of Rs. 67,200 to the first respondent herein, whose son by name Ramu died in an accident, while he was engaged in the dismantling of the illumination arrangements in the temple tower.2. The appellant temple had asked the second respondent herein, who is an electrical contractor, for illumination of Kapaleeswarar Temple Tower during the festival occasion and after the festival was over, on 18.5.1992, when the deceased Ramu was attending the dismantling work in the tower on the instruction of the second respondent, he fell down from the tower and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, his mother, the first respondent herein, filed the petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation against the temple and the contractor claiming compensation for the death of her son. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ...
The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate and anr. Vs. Hameed Ja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1995
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ260
Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 30.8.1993 in W.P. No. 16175 of 1993, whereunder the learned single Judge has issued directions as hereunder, while finally disposing of the main writ petition, even at the stage of hearing for admission, on hearing the counsel for the 1st respondent herein/writ petitioner:After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the affidavit filed herein, without going into the merits of the case, I think it suffice to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's petition filed under Section 52 of the Act for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount, on merits and in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order, if the same has not been disposed of already, till such time, the further proceedings before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in S.O.C.C. No. 309 of 1993 shall stand stayed. However, ...
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC23
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. These two tax cases under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 have been preferred by the Revenue in relation to assessment year 1973-74. Only a very short question is involved in it. We heard only learned counsel for the revenue since the assessee remains unrepresented. One Tax case is against allowing of the Tribunal Appeal by the assessee (against remand order by Appellate Asst. Commissioner which setaside the reassessment) and the other Tax Case is against dismissal of the Enhancement Petition filed in the said appeal by the Revenue.2. The question involved is whether the enforcement authority could make a revised assessment under section 16 of the Act when the earlier assessment by the assessing authority was only a 'Nil' assessment, which was not communicated to the assessee. Even earlier another Bench of this Court in which one of us (Abdul Hadi, J) was a party, in the decision reported in Muthu Metals v. State of Tamil Nadu 1993 3 MTCR ...
Azariah Vs. A.K.A. Mohammed Ismail Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)2MLJ648
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner herein is the tenant, against whom, petition for eviction was filed by the respondent under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973). The petitioner disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself. The Rent Controller, while expressing a doubt as to whether the petition for eviction was maintainable, in view of the fact that the title of the respondent to the property, was in dispute and pending decision by this Court in a first appeal, as between the respondent and his vendor, passed an order dismissing the eviction petition on merits, after holding against the respondent with regard to the grounds urged for eviction.2. The respondent filed R.C.A. No. 13 of 1985 on the file of Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Tirunelveli, Pending that appeal, the respondent filed LA. No. 146 of 1986 under Section 11(4) of the Act pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »