Chennai Court January 1996 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.
inspector of Central Excise and ors. Vs. S.A. Samad, Licensee, Bharath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC122
K.A. Swamy, C.J.1. In all these writ appeals and writ petitions, notices issued under Rules 10 and 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, demanding certain amount of excise duty, in each one of the cases are challenged. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 398 of 1981 with C.A. Nos. 401-422/81, 423-34/81, 633 & 634/82, 3019/83, 3020/83, 4418/84, 1292/81, 1293/81, 1295/81, 1296/81, 1299/81, 1300/81, 1301/81, 1303/81, 1303/81 (sic), 1304/81, 1306/81, 1308/81, 1309/81, 1310/81, 1298/81 and Civil Appeal Nos. 1166, 1168 and 1174/82 and C.A. Nos. 3296-3299, 3301-3303 & 3305-3320/82, against the judgment of this Court. The Supreme Court by judgment dt. 18.7.1995, has remitted these matters to this Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court reads thus:This batch of appeals arises out of a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in a group of Writ Petitions Nos. 4145-4155/75 disposed of by a common judgment dated 6th October, 1975. By those writ peti...
C. Karupakara Rao Vs. R. Subba Rao and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas568(Mad)
Govardhan J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that he is the owner of a sum of Rs. 35,000 deposited in the second defendant bank, in fixed deposit in the name of the first defendant and to pay the same to the plaintiff with interest contending that the plaintiff obtained a pay order in favour of the first defendant from the Bank of America since the first defendant was going away to Bombay and deposited the said pay order with the second defendant in fixed deposits. 3. The first defendant in his written statement has stated that he was in Madras only and did not go to Bombay and the amount in the fixed deposit belongs to him and he has got valid title to the same. 4. The second defendant in a separate written statement has contended that the plaintiff handed over a pay order drawn in favour of the first defendant for Rs. 35,000 with a request to open a fixed deposit account in the name of the first defendant and also requested the s...
Union of India Vs. M. Shah Jehan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas310(Mad); 1996CriLJ2597; 1997(57)ECC161
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is against the order dated November 5, 1984, of the Appellate Board under the said Act, modifying the order dated August 9, 1982, of the first authority, viz., the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras 6. 2. There were three contraventions under the Act, one under section 9(1)(b), another under section 9(1)(d) and yet another under section 9(1)(e) of the Act. But even according to learned counsel for the appellant, in this appeal we are concerned only with the contravention under section 9(1)(b) by the respondent. Regarding the same, the first authority levied penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 50 of the Act and also confiscated under section 63 of the Act, the sum of Rs. 50,000 involved in the contravention, which was actually seized on February 15, 1982. But, the abovesaid modification made by the Appellate Board in the appeal preferred b...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bison Knitting Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: [1999]235ITR142(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the order under s. 263 of the CIT on the ground that no prejudice had been caused to the interest of the Revenue by the order of the ITO, even though the ITO had allowed depreciation on the entire plant and machinery at a uniform rate of 15 per cent. (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the views taken by the Tribunal that the capital gains that would arise on the transfer of the business by the old firm to the individual Smt. P. S. Seethalakshmi and again on the transfer of the proprietary business to the assessee-firm would be more than the increase in the revenue that might arise by the adoption of the written down value of the machineries as the cost of the same in the hands of the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sujanni Textiles (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR560(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court, for the asst. yr. 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the materials on record, the finding of the Tribunal that no part of the interest paid by the assessee on the borrowed funds could be disallowed for the asst. yr. 1976-77, is justified ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company, engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. For the asst. yr. 1976-77, it filed a return admitting a net loss of Rs. 11,38,420. The assessment was completed on 23th November, 1978, determining the net loss at Rs. 10,45,083. While completing the assessment, the ITO noticed that the assessee had claimed interest payment on the borrowed capital. He also noticed that there were debit balances in the account of the estate of the late Shri G. N. Sam, and also in the accounts of two other directors. As ...
Ranjan Kumar Ghose Vs. Mrs. Debarati Ghose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: I(1996)DMC670
Goverdhan, J.1. The applicant is the petitioner in Application No. 7120 of 1994 in which he has prayed for an order of interim custody of minor Rahul Kumar Ghose with a direction to the respondent to hand over the minor during School Holidays and Week ends pending disposal of the Original Petition.2. After due enquiry giving opportunity to the respondent to file a counter, an order has been passed by this Court on 7.3.1995. In the said order, it has been directed that the learned Advocates for the applicant and the respondent will have to decide the place where the custody of the boy could be handed over by the respondent to the applicant either in their presence or in the presence of their representatives and vice versa, on every Holiday and Weekends. A direction has also been given to the respondent to give the custody of the minor to her husband on every Sunday at about 8 a.m., and take him back on the same day at 6.30 p.m.3. The applicant herein who is the husband, has come forward...
Ranjan Kumar Ghose Vs. Debarati Ghose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: II(1997)DMC253; (1996)IMLJ355
Goverdhan, J.1. The applicant is the petitioner in Application No. 7120 of 1994 in which he has prayed for an order of interim custody of minor Rahul Kumar Ghose with a direction to the respondent to hand over the minor during School Holidays and week ends pending disposal of the Original Petition.2. After due enquiry giving opportunity to the respondent to file a counter, an order has been passed by this Court on 7.3.1995. In the said order, it has been directed that the learned Advocates for the applicant and the respondent will have to decide the place the custody of the boy could be handed over by the respondent to the applicant either in their presence or in the presence of their representatives and vice-versa, on every Holiday and weekends. A direction has also been given to the respondent to give the custody of the minor to her husband on every Sunday about 8 a.m., and take him back on the same day at 6.30 p.m.3. The applicant herein who is the husband, has come forward with thi...
V.V.S. Annachamy Vs. Rajamani Nachiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC585
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 24.4.1987 made in A.S.77 of 1986 on the file of the District Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai by which the fair and decretal order dated 14.3.1986 made in E.P.52 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramakudi (in O.S.1 of 1963 of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai) was confirmed.2. The respondent herein in whose favour the decree dated 20.12.1963 in O.S.1 of 1963 was made is none other than the wife of the appellant. She was the second plaintiff in the suit. The first plaintiff is her minor son. The first defendant in that suit is the appellant herein. In that suit, a decree was made which among other things directed the first defendant to pay to the respondent herein separate maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month from 22.4.1960. A charge was also created for the amount of maintenance on the first defendant's half share in the plaint schedule immovable properties.3. The case of the ...
Sellammal and Four ors. Vs. Thiru Vengada Udayar and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC57
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Courts below, by which adjudication of the respondents 1 and 2 as insolvents, was set aside invoking Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It is not in dispute that the respondents 1 and 2 were adjudicated as insolvents by an order made on 18.2.1977. The courts below have ordered annulment of that order on the ground that the debts owed by the insolvents on the date of adjudicate on to the petitioning creditors were wiped out by reason of the enactment of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (Act 13 of 1980) which came into force with effect from 8.2.1980.2. The argument advanced for the appellants is that once the order of adjudication is made, the state of the insolvent is vested with the Official Receiver and thereafter the insolvent cannot claim any right in respect of the estate and the insolvent is therefore, prevented from invoking the provision of subsequent enactment though it would have been applicable to...
V. Kaliappan Vs. Haji Karutha Rowther Howdia Maharasa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC203
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The revision petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner suffered an ex parte decree, passed by the District Munsif, Uthamapalayam on 15.2.1990 in O.S. No. 1317 of 1989. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 104 of 1990 to set aside the said decree. An order was passed in that application on 2.9.1991, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 100 by way of costs to the respondent, on or before 30.8.1991, as condition. It was made clear that the petition would stand dismissed if the cost was not paid. On. 2-9-1991, the court passed an order dismissing the petition, recording the fact that the cost was not paid.2. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 289 of 1992 for setting aside that order and restore the T.A. No. 104 of 1990. That was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that remedy of the petitioner was only to file an appeal. That order was challenged by the petitioner in this Court, in C.R.P. No. 1282 of 1993, and detai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »