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.
Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate and anr. Vs. A. Lateef and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(53)ECC149
Raju, J.1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order dt: 13.8.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 14925 of 1993 issuing the following direction:--After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case at this stage, instead, I think it suffice to direct 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application, said to have been filed on 13.5.1992, on merits and in accordance with law, if it is in order, within three months from today, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Till the application filed by the petitioner for dispensing the pre-deposit under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act as directed above is disposed of all further proceedings shall stand stayed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.' The said order came to be passed on the writ petition filed seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Boar...
Sengani Ammal Vs. Authysekaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ310
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 126 of 1986, on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, is the revision petitioner.2.Eviction was ordered on the ground that the petitioner herein has sub-let the building to one Arputham for the purpose of carrying on his business. The concurrent finding of the authorities below is challenged in this revision.3. The finding of the authorities below being concurrent, this Court will be reluctant to interfere unless the revision petitioner is able to show that there is illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the decisions arrived at by the authorities below. Let us see how far learned Counsel for the petitioner herein has succeeded in his attempt.4. The rental arrangement is not disputed. In paragraph 3 of the eviction petition, it is stated thus:.The respondent has undertaken that he will not sub-let the premises to any third parties; but the respondent contravening the said agreement and without necessary permission from this p...
Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. J. Banu and Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad466
ORDERK. A. Swami C. J. 1. Both the writ appeals are preferred against the common order dt. 14-8-1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W. Ps. 8466 and 8467 of 1995, as the learned single Judge has issued a direction to the respondent in the Writ Petitions, viz., Tamil Nadu State Contruction Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as 'the Corporation') to pass orders as early as possible so that it could avoid further delay in construction work entrusted to the writ petitioners.2. In the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for quashing the orders dt. 30-3-1995 passed by the Corporation rejecting the request made by the writ petitioners for extension of time to complete the work entrusted to them by the Corporation whichwork was entrusted to it by the State Government under G.O.Ms. No. 410 P.W.D. dt. 11-3-1993 and G.O.Ms. No.411 P.W.D. dt. 11-3-1993. Learned single Judge has not only quashed the orders of the Corporation but has also issued direction to it to reconsider the ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.V. Appadurai Chettiar Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR849(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this Court in T. C. P. No. 224 of 1979, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of the income in the original return filed on 17th March, 1972, and accordingly in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm doing business in jaggery at Vellore. On 17th March, 1972, for the asst. yr. 1971-72, the assessee filed a return, disclosing the business income of Rs. 64,234. In the course of examination of the accounts, the ITO found that there was a credit for Rs. 10,000 in the name of one Sri Gopal Mudaliar. The assessee filed a confirmatory letter from Gopal Mudaliar in support of the loan of Rs. 10,00...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramanathapuram District, Central Co-ope ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR226(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1976-77 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 correct in law in holding that the interest on securities and dividend were business income of the assessee entitled to deduction under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' The point for consideration in these Tax Cases is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 with regard to interest on securities and dividend income 2. Insofar as the deduction claimed under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act with regard to the interest on securities is concerned, the assessee is entitled to deduction as claimed in view of the earlier decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Madurai District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (1989) 148 ITR 196 : TC 26R.711. 3. Insofar ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. P. Nainakhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)332; [1996]221ITR805(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in TCP Nos. 224 and 225 of 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions of law for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76, under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty levied under s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957 2. Whether, the Tribunal had any valid material to hold that the assessee has no mens rea for furnishing the return belatedly and as such the penalty levied under s. 18(1)(a) was not warranted ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, the assessee filed his Wealth-tax return belatedly on 16th January, 1976, after having filed an application for extension of time up to 30th November, 1974. The WTO initiated penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act for the delay in filing the wealth-tax retur...
Johnson Vs. Jaya Pushparani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC335
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This revision by the husband is directed against the order made in M.C. No. 17 of 1993, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Pudukkottai, awarding maintenance to the wife/1st respondent herein at Rs. 300/- per month and to the minor son/2nd respondent herein at Rs. 100/- p.m.2. The wife filed me petition for maintenance in M.C. No. 17 of 1993, before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Pudukkottai, stating that both the petitioner and the 1st respondent were living together as husband and wife, even prior to the marriage, which was performed on 23.10.1989 in a Christian Church and registered with the Registrar of Indian Christian Marriages, Pudukkottai, and after the birth of the child, the 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner/husband left the company of the wife and child and neglected to maintain them.3. The petitioner/husband contested me said maintenance application, contending that there was no intimacy as alleged by the 1st respondent, between them prio...
A. Nagarajan Vs. A. Madhanakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC229; (1996)IMLJ422
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The Petitioner has challenged the order appointing a Commissioner in a Part-heard case contending it as one without jurisdiction, per se illegal and even perverse. The facts in brief are, the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 1274 of 1992 against the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) for wilful default, 10(2)(v) for acts of waste and 10(3)(a)(i) for owner's occupation of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in short Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). After completion of the pleadings, the case was taken up for trial on 23.8.1993 adjourned to 7.9.1993. The respondent landlord after examination in part, filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition scheduled property occupied by the petitioner herein with a direction to the Advocate Commissioner to avail the services of a civil engineer to submit a report with plan and other enclosures. The said application...
The Southern Railways Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC395
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioner is a co-operative Society formed by the Railway employees, which was registered on 8.1.1995 with a specific object of providing house sites to its members by acquiring lands and constructing houses thereon. The lands were purchased by the society and a lay out was prepared, which was approved by the Commissioner of Town Panchayat, Kasiapalayam in proceedings No. 1484 of 89, dated 13.2.1990. According to the petitioners, the construction work begun in April, 1990 and was nearing completion, when the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published by the Government in May, 1991. Though the name of the petitioner society was not found in the said notification, the Society on coming to know of the acquisition proceedings filed its objections in the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Several objections were raised by the Society and the same were forwarded to the requisitioning body, who replied with their remarks on the objections. An oral en...
R. Kumarasamy Kounder Vs. V. Ezhumalai Kounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC150
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 54 of 1991, on the file of Additional District Munsif s Court, Villupuram.2. The suit filed by the appellant is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession on the following facts:-The property having an area of 80 cents originally belonged to one Govindasamy Gounder who sold the same to one Pandurangan as per Ex. B. l. Pandurangan had two sons. It is said that on the death of the wife of Pandurangan, these children, who were then minors, were left in the custody of their uncle Natesan. At that time, Pandurangan executed the original of Ex.A.4 settlement deed dated 15.12.1986. The original of the document is marked as Ex.B.15 on the side of the defendant. It is averred that as per the settlement deed, the minors became the absolute owners of the property who were then under the protection of their uncle Natesan. Pandurangan was a permanent employee at Madras. On 21.6.1989, Pandurangan executed...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »