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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.S. Sivesubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR656(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. As per the direction of this Court, dt. 22nd June, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following three questions for the asst. yr. 1960-61, for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that s. 2(6A)(e) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, is not attracted to the advances of Sivasubramaniam (P) Ltd., to the assessee in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1960-61 2. Whether the Tribunal and any material to hold that the said company was doing any business other than the moneylending business during the assessment year 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had any material to hold that the moneylending business constituted a substantial part of the business of the said company ?' 2. The assessee is an individual, who is a shareholder in the company of Sivasubramaniam (P) Ltd., Tirupur. The company was incorporated ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S. Venkateswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR163(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In compliance with the order of this court dated November 21, 1979, passed in T.C.P. Nos. 273 to 276 of 1976, the Tribunal referred the following common question, for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that there was no justification for disallowing any portion of the interest payment claimed by the assessee as relating to non-business purposes?' 2. In making the assessment of the assessee, who is an individual, carrying on business in executing sanitary contracts, the Income-tax Officer disallowed interest payment of Rs. 10,069 for the assessment year 1972-73 on the ground that the said interest relating to the borrowed funds utilised by the assessee for his personal purposes should be disallowed as in the last year. For the assessment year 1973-74, he disallowed a similar sum of Rs...
P.R. Ramachandran and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Bo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1548]; (1996)ILLJ823Mad; (1996)IMLJ415
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The challenge in all the above writ petitions are the orders of termination of services of all the nominal muster roll workers (NMR) by the second respondent of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board on January 6, 1994/January 7, 1994. The termination orders were passed by the second respondent on January 7, 1994 on the basis of a telex message, dated January 5, 1994 by the Managing Director of the TWAD Board sent to all the subordinate Officers to terminate the services of all the NMR workers, who have not completed 480 days of service during a continuous period of two years. The telex message, dated January 5, 1994 reads thus:T.W.A.D. BOARDMadras-5State/UrgentToAll Chief Engineers/Superintendent Engineers/Executive Engineers of TWARD Board'You are directed not to engage any NM Rs., who have not completed 480 days in a continuous period of two years as on December 31, 1993 under your control. Instruct al1 your subordinates suitably. Make suitable inte...
R. Kumar and 24 ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1Mad; (1996)IMLJ393
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Petitioners are the employees in the Office of the Official Assignee, which is incharge of the administration of the estates of the insolvents adjudicated by order of this Court. They filed the Writ Petition for the following relief.To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to implement and revise the scales of pay of various categories and also to amend the nomenclature of various posts in the Madras High Court Official Assignee Service on par with that of the equal categories in the Madras High Court Service and Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service, and direct respondents 1 and 2 to revise and refix the scales of pay for the posts of various categories in the Madras High Court Official Assignee Service on par with that of the equal categories of the Madras High Court Service and Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service with all attendant benefits of pay, allowances and other monetary benefits on par with that of the equal categories with effect from Octo...
G. Jothimani Nadar Vs. Deputy Director of Enforcement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas614(Mad); 1996(55)ECC47
1. Having failed before both the authorities below under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the person against whom an order for confiscation under Section 63 of the Act and an order levying penalty under Section 50 of the Act, were passed for contravention of Section 9(1)(b) of the Act, has preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Act.2. As per Section 9(1)(b) of the Act, no person in India shall 'receive, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India'. The concurrent finding arrived at is that the appellant has received otherwise than through an authorised dealer, payment of Rs. 40,000 so unauthorisedly on behalf of one Cibar of Colombo, a person resident outside India, that the said Cibar took Rs. 10,000 out of it, that the balance was kept by the appellant, which was seized from him at his residence in India on August 3, 1979. The said balance of Rs. 30,000 was ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lakshmi Industries (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR36(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 2(7)(c) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1977, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-company is an 'industrial company' and is eligible for being taxed at the concessional rate of 55 per cent. for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 '2. The assessee, Lakshmi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pudukottai, was engaged in the business of hulling of paddy and extraction of oil. It leased out its factory to another concern and was earning lease income. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee claimed the concessional rate of tax of 55 per cent. on the ground that the assessee was an industrial company as defined under Section 2(7)(c...
C.R. Mugundan and ors. Vs. Director General (Member Secretary), Indian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ849Mad; (1996)IMLJ523
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. The prayer in W.P, No. 18969 of 1994 is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in their respective categories as they are working now in the service of the Indian Council of Medical Research, CJIL Field Unit or any other unit before the expiry of the last extended period of March 31, 1994 to March 31, 1995 with continuity of service and statutory service entitlements and benefits.2. The prayer in W.P. No. 15648 of 1995 is to call for the records of the respondents in CFU/Scheme/ESTT/94-95/83 dated March 27, 1995 in respect of the petitioners and quash the same and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioners in their respective categories in the Indian Council of Medical Research, CJIL Field Unit or any other unit with continuity of service and all the entitlements and benefits.3. The petitioners were recruited by the Central Jalma Institute for Le...
S.P. Abdul Rahim and Son Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ1134Mad
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. The prayer in all these Writ Petitions is common. The prayer runs thus:'to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter/communication No. TN/8208/ Bidi/Spl/Squad/VLR/94 dated February 11, 1994 addressed to the petitioners quashing the above letter/communication and^ directing the respondents not to implement the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in respect of Ring Labellers....'2. The short facts are: All these writ Petitioners are engaged in the sale of beedis. They employ accountants, clerks, Maistries and packers in their premises. According to them, they obtain beedis by contract system. The finished beedis are tendered by independent contractor at the premises of the Petitioners and receive the contractual amount mutually agreed. The beedis received from the contractors are entered in the concerned registers prescribed under Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and scheme the...
New India Assurance Company Vs. the Food Corporation of India, Rep. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC375; (1996)IMLJ265
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. Sixth defendant is the appellant.2. The suit is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,014 payable by the first defendant and interest for the above amount at 11% per annum from the date of receipt of recovery order by the first defendant viz., 20-4-1971 and for costs. The fifth defendant has been impleaded as it had issued a fidelity insurance guarantee for the due performance of the contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant. It had undertook to indemnify the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 25,000 against the loss. The fifth defendant has been impleaded on account of the default of the first defendant and since the fifth defendant had not made good the loss sustained by the plaintiff even after the receipt of the notice issued to them on 19.6,1971 followed by a reminder on 14.7.1971. The sixth defendant has been subsequently impleaded as the fifth defendant had merged with the sixth defendant. The claim is resisted by the sixth defendant in their written stat...
Muthiah thevar and Three ors. Vs. Chellathai and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC167
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioners-defendants 6,7,9 and 10 in O.S. No. 253 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif, Sivakasi have filed this civil revision petition against the fair and final decree in E.P.44 of 1995 in O.S.No.253 of 1986 dated 22-9-1995. The first respondent herein who is the contesting parry had been served with the summons. But he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. The remaining respondents 2 to 6 had been given up since they remain ex parte before the Court below.2. The petitioners are respondents 6,7,9 and 10 in E.P. No. 44 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Sivakasi. They are the defendants in the suit. The first respondent he rein/plaintiff filed the suit for partition and the final decree was passed by the lower Court. Pursuant to the final decree the plaintiff filed Execution Petition to get separate possession of her share. The petitioners herein filed objection stating that the final decree has not been engrossed in the non-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »