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.
S. Ilango Vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Represented by Its Chief Officer P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC182
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to forbear the respondent from acting upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam and consequently, direct the respondent to consider him for promotion as Officer by issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and pass such further or other orders.2. In support of this writ petition, the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit in which, he has stated that he belongs to Kondareddy community which is one of the communities coming under the list of Schedule Tribes in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 passed by the President by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Article 342 of the Constitution of India and listed as such under the Central Act 108 of 1976. He has applied for the post of clerical cadre to the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Southern Region against the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes, arid was selected in the written...
Ganapathi Gounder Vs. the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ472
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. Though the respondents have been served they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. The first respondent is the decree holder and the petitioner is the judgment-debtor. The first respondent filed E.P. No. 127 of 1991 to execute the decree in O.S. No. 148 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruppur. The execution was levied for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,30,000. The first respondent has filed counter, in which, he has stated as follows:In the recent days often the announcement of Palladam as backward area by the Government the land value has risen considerably. The agricultural lands are now converted into House sites so also the value of the respondent lands have become increased. The nearby lands have been converted into house sites and sold as house sites. An extent of 1.50 acres out of 7.10 acres will be sufficient to satisfy the decree amount. The petitioner has purposely valued the entire extent of property for Rs. 25,000. This show...
S. Thiagarajan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ483
ORDER1. The petitioner is the owner of a house site measuring 3,240 sq.ft. in R.S. No. 22/1A in Velisemmandalam Village, Cuddalore Taluk, South Arctor District, having purchased the same under document No. 808/90, dated 24.4.1990 on the file Sub Registrar, Cuddalore. He got approval of the lay out by the Director of Town Planning in Na.Vu.E. No. 114/90. He obtained permission for construction of a house and constructed a house in August, 1991. Thereafter, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms. No. 1251, dated 19.9.1991. When the petitioner received notice, he raised his objections and the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was held on 20.3.1992. But for reasons best known to the respondents, another notice was issued to the petitioner in Na.Ka.R. No. 70/98 dated 8.6.1992 calling upon him to file objections within 15 days. He filed his written objections on 16.6.1992. There was no enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act thereafter. But a repor...
Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mad)15
ORDERPer Shri M. M. Cherian, Accountant Member - These appeals filed by the assessee are against the orders of the CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1977-78 to 1984-85. The ground which is common for all the years is regarding the claim for weighted deductions under section 35C of the IT Act. For the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, apart form deduction under section 35C, there are also other grounds raised by the assessee. Since the aforesaid appeals involve common ground, they are heard together and disposed of this common consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a co-operative society, running a sugar factory at Palacode in Dharmapuri District. For manufacturing sugar in the factor, the assessee purchases sugar-cane form registered cane growers. In computing the total income for the years under consideration, the assessee claimed weighted deduction of 11/5 times under section 35C of the I. T. Act on the amounts paid to the cane growers as early and ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR403(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 883/(Madras) of 1978-79 for the assessment year 1970-71 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 Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy penalty in this case under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner alone can levy the penalty ?' 2. The assessee, during the assessment year under consideration, was doing business in purchase and sale of standard gold jewellery and silver articles, filed his return on December 13, 1970, disclosing an income of Rs. 2,105. The Income-tax Officer determined the total income in the assessment made by him on January 12, 1973, at Rs. 25,510 including additions for deficien...
Perianayagam Vs. Maria Arokiam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC415; (1996)IMLJ328
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 1742 of 1981, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Dindigul is the appellant herein. Respondent herein, who is his brother, filed the said suit for partition of B Schedule Property on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by their father Arulappan Servai on 31.10.1963. It is in evidence that Arulappan Servai had children other than the parties to the suit. He died in 1964. On the basis of the will, the plaintiff claimed half right in the property and wanted partition of the same.2. The appellant disputed the genuineness of the will and also contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.3. The trial court, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion on that the plaintiff is entitled to half right on the basis of the will, but dismissed the suit on the ground that there are other sharers who also should have been made parties to the suit. A finding was entered on the basis that there are other prop...
M.M.D.A. Reb. by Its S.E. Construction Etc. Vs. National Buildings Con ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC361
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the reference to arbitration is as per Clause 46 of the agreement between the parties. First respondent requested the appellant to appoint an Arbitrator by letter dated 29.4.1992. An Arbitrator took the view that it was barred by limitation as Clause 46 of the agreement provided for a period of three months for reference. Challenging the said opinion of the Arbitrator an application was filed on the original side and the learned single Judge has reversed the order of the Arbitrator. Learned single Judge has found that the reference to arbitration has commenced when the first respondent wrote to appellant to nominate an Arbitrator on 24.9.1992. In this connection learned Judge has placed reliance on the judgment in New Agrex S.A. v. Baltic shipping Co. Ltd. and Intershipping Charter Co. (1976 (2) L LR 47).2. Clause 46 of the agreement between the parties to the extent to which it is relevant reads as follo...
The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC269
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant can be treated as a secured creditor under section 529A of the Companies Act. For this purpose, learned counsel for the appellant relies on Section 29-D of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act 65 of 1951). Section 29-D of the said Act reads as follows: -'29-D Debts incurred by the authorised person to have priority: Every debt arising out of any loan obtained by the authorised person, for carrying on the management of, or exercising functions of control in relation to, an industrial undertaking or part thereof, the management of which has been taken over under section 18-A or section 18AA or section 18FA,-(a) shall have priority over all other debts, whether secured or unsecured, incurred before the management of such industrial undertaking was taken over;(b) shall be a preferential debt within the meaning of Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1...
Meenakshisundaram Vs. N. Rangasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC613; (1996)IMLJ297
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The suit by the appellant is one for recovery of money due under a promissory note dated 4.4.1988 for Rs. 3,000 with interest thereon. Ex.A-1 is the promissory note. When the transaction was not settled in spite of various demands, registered notice was issued through advocate on the basis of Ex. A-2 and the same was replied under Ex.A-4, wherein the defendant denied the liability under the note.3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is contended that he has not executed the suit promissory note, that the plaintiff had taken his signature in blank paper and that the same has been utilised by the plaintiff the purpose of creating the suit promissory note.4. The parties went on trial before the trial court and, after taking evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial court held that the suit promissory note was duly executed by the defendant, and, on the basis of presumption under Section 118...
J. Priya (Minor) Rep. by Her Father and Natural Guardian Sri. K.R. Jay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC508
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The Case of the Petitioner as can be gathered from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and briefly stated, is as follows:The Petitioner belongs to the Community of Konda Reddy which is a scheduled Tribe according to the Constitution Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. She was so described as Konda Reddy in the S.S.L.C. book. Her mother had been given a community certificate by the Tahsildar, Mettur Dam as early as on 12.9.1978 and she is working as an Organiser in the Nutritious Noon Meal Scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu from 1984. Some of the other relatives of the petitioner are also described as Konda Reddis. She studied the 12th Standard in the Nirmala Higher Secondary School, Kolathur and applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course. She was selected for the said course. On 13.6.1995 the second respondent Selection Committee had written a letter to the petitioner directing her to produce a community certificate from the Revenue Divisional ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »