Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1996Mad408
ORDER1. Heard, while seeking the admission of this revision, the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, in I. A. No. 482 of 1995 in O.S. 557 of 1993; filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing the defendant to adduce evidence first to prove his case with reference to the relief of declaration asked for in the written statement, is being challenged, for want of its legality and propriety.2. It is stated that the suit property is a land allotted to the share of the respondent/ plaintiff who filed the suit O.S. No. 557 of 1993 before the District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore for the relief of bare injunction, restraining the defendant who is the revision petitioner herein and his men and servants from forming a road in the suit property on the ground that the revision petitioner with the aid of his men, is making every effort to do so. The said allegation is being resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement contending inter-alia ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(55)ECC1
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. The aforesaid writ appeals are preferred against the interim order dt. 24.2.1995 passed in W.M.P. Nos.7898, 7916 & 8236/95, filed in W.P. Nos. 4804, 4991 and 4821/95.2. When these writ appeals came up for consideration, we considered it necessary to hear the writ petitions along with the writ appeals, as the points involved in the writ petitions and writ appeals, are one and the same, and accordingly, we directed the writ petitions to be posted along with these writ appeals. Accordingly, the writ petitions are also posted along with the writ appeals and we have heard both sides in the writ the appeals and in the writ petitions. As the decision in the writ petitions would have the bearing on the writ appeals, we will take up the writ petitions first for consideration.3. In the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for quashing the Circular bearing Ref.No. 14/005/131/95 dt. 20.3.1995, issued by the Council for Leather Exports, Madras, calling upon the w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)137CTR(Mad)583; [1996]222ITR445(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. As per the directions of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act'), the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the admission of one Miss A. Gita, major, to the benefits of partnership would not make the partnership as 'illegal' or 'invalid' and, hence, the assessee's claim for registration of the firm cannot be denied by the ITO and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in overlooking the fact that the partnership deed and Form No. 11 have not been signed either by the guardian of Miss Gita, or by Miss Gita herself even though she is a major and that this will vitiate the application for registration and rr. 22(2) (i) and 22(5) of the IT Rules, 1962 ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership-firm, called Shankar Cottons, Coimbatore. The assessee filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1997]224ITR290(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the directions given by this court in T.C.P. No. 416 of 1979, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 38,387 incurred by the assessee-company in connection with the issue of right shares to existing shareholders was capital in nature and not admissible as a deduction in computing the total income ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacturing and sale of electronic instruments, relays, fusegears, etc. During the relevant previous year for the assessment year 1967-68, the assessee issued equity shares to existing shareholders as rights shares. In connection with that the assessee spent Rs. 28,000 as fees paid to the share registrars and a further amount of Rs. 10,387 was paid to solicitors, Jardine Henderson Ltd., in connec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)1MLJ408
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent in L.R. No. 22-C. 11/1-86, dated 5.6.1986 and quash the same.2. In support of the writ petition, the petitioner who is working as Junior Assistant in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital has filed an affidavit. In the affidavit she has stated that as a Government servant she has applied for a flat under the Rental Housing scheme and a flat No. C. 13/1, M.N. Colony was allotted to her by the respondent by allotment order No. T.V. R2/6847/76, dated 26.9.1976. The petitioner asked to change the flat to Flat No. C. 11/1 and the said change was affected on 7.10.1976 alloting Flat C-11/1.3. She received a letter No. R2/C. 11-1/86, dated 5.6.1986 from the respondent asking her to vacate the flat and hand over the same on or before 16.6.1986. The said communication was sent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999]236ITR872(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, in TCP No. 417/79 dt. 14th September, 1980, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion under s. 27(3) of the WT Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that s. 35 of the WT Act, 1957 cannot be invoked in the assessee's case for the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?' 2. In the asst. yr. 1972-73, the WTO in his order dt. 31st May, 1975 under s. 35 of the Act, added a sum of Rs. 45,700 as a liability due by the assessee to the Life Insurance Corporation, omitted to be disallowed in the original assessment made on 20th February, 1973 wherein such liability has been allowed as a deduction. According to the WTO, rectification is possible, since the liability in question being secured and (sic-against) the life insurance policies in respect of which no wealth tax was chargeable, had been wrongly allowed and the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ210Mad
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated September 14, 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 3388 of 1988, dismissing the writ petition.2. In the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant sought for quashing the order dated November, 20, 1987 in T.S.E. No. 27 of 1987. The second respondent in the writ petition, who has also been arrayed as second respondent in this appeal, died during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, his legal representatives have been brought on record as respondents 4, 5, & 6 out of them, respondents 5 and 6 are minors and they are represented by the 4th respondent.3. Though the matter relates to the termination of services of the 2nd respondent, the legal representatives of the deceased have been brought on records, as they would be entitled to the benefits which the deceased would have got, had his (deceased 2nd respondent) services were not terminated.4. The deceased 2nd respondent was appointed as Sales Officer in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(1)CTC423
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsel, the main revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. This revision has been filed against the order of dismissing the I.A. No. 507 of 1995 in O.S. No. 188 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif, Jayakondam seeking the relief to withdraw the suit under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.3. The petitioner filed the suit O.S. No. 188 of 1994 against the respondents herein for declaration of his title to the suit property and for consequential relief. After filing the suit, the petitioner has filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, contending that the defendants had filed written statement alleging that there are several sale deeds concerning the suit property in favour of third parties and the alleged sale deeds were not known to him previously, and in order to ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)1MLJ435
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. One Loganayaki Ammal filed H.P.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1980, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kulithalai. Pending disposal of the said petition, she died, and the present petitioners have been impleaded as her legal heirs. Her husband Manimuthusamy has also been impleaded (as second petitioner).2. The petition for eviction was filed on the ground that the first respondent herein is a tenant of the petition mentioned building, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 90. It is an oral tenancy, and the rent is payable according to the English calendar month. Each month's rent is payable on the 5th of every succeeding English calendar month. It is seen that the first respondent is an advocate and also a politician. While occupying the building, he stood for election, and it is seen that he was for sometime a Minister. The case that is put forward by the petitioners is that after he was elevated to the Cabinet, he shifted his residence to the Quarters an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)1MLJ631
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The tenant Messrs. Brooke Bond India Limited who lost before both the authorities below, is the revision petitioner.2. Respondent herein filed the eviction petition for eviction on the ground that the building is required by him for bona fide own use. It is averred in paragraph 3 of the eviction petition that he is the owner of the building. Even though the petitioner (in the eviction petition) owns other buildings, all of them are tenanted. He is running a partnership business along with his other family members Besides that, he is also having money-lending business. For the purpose of the partnership business and also for the money-lending business, he wants the scheduled building. It is said that the petitioner is not having in his possession any other building which is suitable for the said purpose. It is further averred that various demands were made to the tenant, petitioner herein, and they promised to vacate the demised premises provided some time was given...
Tag this Judgment!