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.
Saratha Ammal and anr. Vs. Ganiappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ154
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. These revisions are by the landlord who filed eviction petition against the respondent herein as H.R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 1987, on the file of Rent Controller, Tenkasi.2. The only ground on which the petition for eviction was filed was that there was default in payment of rent.3. The material averments are as follows:The respondent is in possession of a non-residential building, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 40. It is said that the lease arrangement was for a period of three years. It is averred that the tenant was not regular in paying rents. The petitioner filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 1987, on the same ground. At that time, the respondent herein also filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1979 (sic) depositing the rent in court, under Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act. The petitioner's application was dismissed, and the respondent was allowed to deposit rent in court. It is said that the respondent was not regular in paying the rent even though he obtained direction f...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Administrator General of Madras (for th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Mad)261
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question 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 sum of Rs. 26,538 was assessable as accrued interest and the sum of Rs. 23,850 was allowable as expenses against interest income ?'2. One Mrs. Ida L. Chambers died on 13th Aug., 1968 leaving an estate covered by her will, dt. 29th Oct., 1949 with a codicil, dt. 3rd Jan., 1950. After the death of Mrs. Ida L. Chambers, the estate was taken over by the Administrator General of Madras under an order made by this Court. The Administrator General of Madras applied to this Court for permission to take possession of the estate and the Court ordered to take possession on 28th Aug., 1968. On 28th April, 1969, the Administrator had made an application to prove the will. Probate was granted on 26th March, 1970. The Administrator filed a return, showing nil income and cla...
J.S. Muthu Vs. the Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3048
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant J. S. Muthu under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act 46 of 1973). The only charge framed in this case is that the appellant has received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in contravention of provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. The charge against the appellant is that he received a payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 1st June, 1974 from a person other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange by order or on behalf of Shri J. Asirvatham of Kualalampur, a person resident outside India, which is a contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Hereinafter called the 'Act'). According to the department, on receipt of reliable information that one J. S. Muthu had been to a foreign exchange racketeer's place at Aminijikarai, Madras, on 1st June 1974 and he had been directed to wait at a place on the Armenian Street, Madras-1 for receiving the amount, th...
Krishnaswami Alias Chinnu Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3372
Arunachalam, J.1. Appellant Krishnaswami alias Chinnu was the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He was charged under Section 302, IPC on the allegation that at or about 11.00 p.m. on 16th January, 1986, near Vinayagar temple, adjacent to the house of one Palaniswami, situated at Bangalowmedu, he caused the death of deceased Rajendran, by stabbing him with a knife on his abdomen, neck, etc. On conclusion of trial, appellant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the evidence brought on record, is as follows : P.W. 5, Chinnaswami, a resident of Mettupalayam, is the father of deceased Rajendran. P.W. 1, Subramaniam, P.W. 2, Sivanandam, P.W. 3, Chandran, P.W. 4, Arumugham, and the appellant were residents of Rajapuram, near Methupalayam. About 15 years ago P.W. 5 purchased 1.6 acres of land from Thiru Mooppa Gounder, father of the appella...
Sambandam Vs. Janakiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad339
ORDER1. This revision is by the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 260 of 1974, on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Sirkali.2. A mortgage decree was obtained by the respondent herein and when the same was sought to be executed, the judgment-debtor claimed the benefit of Act 13 of 1980, i.e., Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 13 of 1980.3. In execution petition when the property was brought to sale, the judgment-debtor moved the local Tahsildar to get certificate of discharge under S. 6 of the Act. It is seen that notice of the said application was given to the decree holder, but she did not appear. Naturally an ex parte order was passed by the Tahsildar issuing a certificate declaring that the debt has been discharged. In the meanwhile, in execution in Civil Court, a date was fixed for sale. The judgment-debtor, therefore, filed C.R.P. No. 2070 of 1983 before this Court, and this Court, as per order dated 12-7-1989, set aside the order of the Court below and directed the executing Court to...
Senthamaraikannan and Two Others Vs. Govindarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC228
ORDER1. This Revision is against the order of the Executive Magistrate passed under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in M.C.No.4 of 1992 on 17.12.1993. 2. The respondent herein filed an application before the Executive IInd Class Magistrate, Tindivanam claiming that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties comprised in R.S.No.378/18, R.S.No.378/14, R.S.No.280/5, R.S.No.379/1 and R.S.No.379/2. He further contended that the petitioners herein are unlawfully interferring with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that there is apprehension of breach of peace and therefore invoking the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate Under Section 145, the respondent herein pleaded for an order restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his peaceful possession. Learned Executive Second Class Magistrate passed an order on 17.12.1993 restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with the enjoyment of the property pending disposal ...
Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR282(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee and the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, for the asst. yr. 1974-75, under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act. By the assessee : '1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under S. 35B is not available on export inspection agency for fee, premium to Export Credit Guarantee Corporation and export pre-shipment advance interest 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred for increasing the capital is not in the nature of the revenue expenditure 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax paid is not an allowable deduction ?' By the Department : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of S. 2(18)(b) ?' 2. Insofar as question number 1 ...
Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Cit V. Lucas T.V.S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)168
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the assessee and the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, for the asst. yr. 1974-75, under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act.By the assessee :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under S. 35B is not available on export inspection agency for fee, premium to Export Credit Guarantee Corporation and export pre-shipment advance interest ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred for increasing the capital is not in the nature of the revenue expenditure ?3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax paid is not an allowable deduction ?'By the Department :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested within the meaning of S. 2(18)(b) ?'2. Insofar as question number 1 is con...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.P. Madan Mohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR1(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that a further sum of Rs. 14,000 should be allowed as an expenditure against the jackpot race winnings of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. He has no avocation. His only activity is going to races both at Madras and Bangalore. According to the assessee, he was maintaining a regular day book and ledger showing the expenditure incurred in going to races. The total expenses claimed by the assessee was Rs. 32,905. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 15,764 from jackpot money. The assessee claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the activity of the...
E.i.D. Parry Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR836(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1971-72 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the withdrawal of the depreciation amounting to Rs. 1,04,994 is correct 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 41(2) are attracted and that the replacement of the boiler has to be interpreted to be brought within the words 'moneys payable' 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the capital gains are attracted to the facts of the case ?' 2. The assessee purchased a Mitsubishi boiler during the accounting year 1967-68, relevant to the assessment year 1969-70 at an actual cost of Rs. 8,01,563. Depreciation totalling to Rs. 2,76,592 was allowed on this boiler for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 and the written down value as on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »