Chennai Court October 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.
Damodaran Vs. Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2092; I(1997)DMC207
ORDER1. The petitioner, Damodaran, is the husband. The respondent, Lakshmi, is the wife. On 4-1-1988, the respondent-wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. 2. In M.C. No. 3/88, despite service of the summons, the petitioner husband did not appear. So, on 26-5-1989, Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode passed an order awarding maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. 3. On 5-8-1991, i.e. after a lapse of two years and three months, the petitioner husband filed a petition in C.M.P. No. 3270 of 1991 to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance under Section 126(2), Cr.P.C. It is alleged in the petition that the husband-petitioner came to know about the ex parte order dated 26-5-1989 only on 3-5-1991. 4. This application was contested by the respondent-wife stating that the summons was sent to the husband and the same was returned on 8-1-1988 itself as refused and the refusal endorsement is marked as Ex. P. 1 and that the petition was not maintainable, in law and on mer...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)166
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In compliance with the direction given by this Court in TCP No. 128 of 1979, dt. 9th October, 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 right in its view that s. 154 of the IT Act could not have been applied for rectifying the errors in disallowing the sums of Rs. 14,549 and Rs. 78,011 being the preliminary and share issue expenses from the value of assets aggregated under r. 19A(5) ?'2. The assessee is a company incorporated in 1964. The assessee has started the business of manufacturing rectified spirit for industrial purposes on 1st December, 1966, and the first accounting period relevant to this date ended on 31st March, 1967, and the first relevant assessment year for the purposes of relief under s. 80J of the Act for this business was asst. yr. 1968-69. The asst. yr. 1970-...
T.A. Bavajan Vs. the Nedungadi Bank, Represented by Its Branch Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ411
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Thirupathur, North Arcot-Ambedkar District, dated 17.7.1996 in E.A. No. 152 of 1995 in E.P. No. 185 of 1995 in O.S. No. 1330 of 1992. Plaintiffrespondent - Bank herein has obtained a decree against the petitioner herein and another person for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,600 with subsequent interest at 13 1/2% per annum from 2.11.1992 till the date of realisation, with costs. Since no amount subsequent to the decree was paid and the petitioner also was avoiding such payment, the decree holder filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 185 of 1995. The decree holder has also prayed for arrest and detention of the petitioner herein in civil prison by invoking the provisions of Order 21, Rules 37 and 38, C.P.C. Notice has been ordered in the above application and it is seem from the averments made in the affidavit filed after the ex-parte order of arrest was made that the petitioner was...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR192(Mad)
K. A. THANIKKACHALAM J. - In compliance with the direction given by this court in T.C.P. No. 128 of 1979, dated October 9, 1979, the Tribunal referred the following question, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in its view that section 154 of the Income-tax Act, could not have been applied for rectifying the errors in disallowing the sums of Rs. 14,549 and Rs. 78,011 being the preliminary and share issue expenses from the value of assets aggregated under rule 19A(3) ?'The assessee is a company incorporated in 1964. The assessee has started the business of manufacturing rectified spirit for industrial purposes on December 1, 1966, and the first accounting period relevant to this date ended on March 31, 1967, and the first relevant assessment year for the purposes of relief under section 80J of the Act for this bu...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rajagopalan Papers Brand Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR592(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, 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, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of S. 187(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that two separate assessments should be made, one for the period 1st April, 1974 to 31st January, 1975 and another for the period from 1st February, 1975 to 31st Mach, 1975 for the asst. yr. 1975-76 in the assessee's case 2. Whether, the Tribunal's view that there was only a succession under S. 188 of the IT Act and not a change in the constitution of the firms within the meaning of S. 187(2) of the IT Act, 1961, is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm, carrying on business in paper, board etc. On 1st April, 1974 the firm consisted of four partners, while fifteen new partners were induct...
D. Munirathanam Vs. the Additional Registrar of Trade Union-i, Madras- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ509Mad
ORDER1. W.P. No. 5069 of 1997 is for mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to enforce the mandatory provisions of the Trade Unions Act with reference to the constitution of the third respondent and to see that the Rules and Bye-laws of the third respondent conform to the Model Constitution as provided for by the Rules framed by the second respondent and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take action against the office bearers of the third respondent as per the Trade Unions Act. 2. W.P. No. 12043 of 1989 is also by the same person for quashing the order of the first respondent in his B-3/11122/88 dated June 20, 1989. 3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as follows : The petitioner is a member of the third respondent-union. The 3rd respondent is registered, from 1961. Chapter 36 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual and the rules 3610 to 3618 therein specify the circumstances for recognition of a Union by the Railways. Third respondent-union was recognised by ...
P. Duraisamy Vs. Sri Mahalakshmi Finance by Its Managing Partner, K. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ115
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The C.M.P. was listed on 7.10.1996. Since counsel for the respondent was absent the matter was posted today. Today also counsel for the respondent is absent.2. The respondent herein is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 359 of 1989 and the petitioner is the son of the judgment-debtor. When the respondent filed the execution petition to recover the money as per the decree by bringing the properties of the judgment-debtor for sale, the petitioner herein filed R.E.A. No. 434 of 1994 putting forth a claim in the properties that were sought to be sold. His case is that the properties were divided between himself and his father, the judgment-debtor and now the decree-holder is trying to bring the entire properties for sale. Pending the claim petition, he also filed R.E.A. No. 441 of 1994 to stay the execution proceedings. The Executing Court dismissed the said petition that is R.E.A. No. 441 of 1994 by order dated 9.6.1994. The said order is as follows:Heard. Oral partition ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Andhra Prabha Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)387
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In pursuance of the direction given by this Court on 7th March, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dealing (sic - deleting) the addition of Rs. 2,54,705 being the value of types in molten stage in the Vat which was not taken into account while valuing the stock ?2. Whether the Tribunals finding that the change in the method of accounting is bona fide, is based on valid and relevant materials and is sustainable in law ?'2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of printing and publishing newspapers. In arriving at the value of the closing stock of metal and types, the assessee used to estimate the value of such metal and types on an ad hoc basic. Since the assessee used a special type of alloy for making types for printing and the alloy so receiv...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Krishnamoorthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR559(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following three questions for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the deletion of the sum of Rs. 2,75,961 assessed as capital gains in the assessee's case 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of s. 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no transfer when the assessee received certain amount over and above his capital for relinquishment of his right in the firm 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the capital gains of Rs. 2,75,961 is exempt under s. 47(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, is sustainable in law ?' 2. The two assessees Sri V. Krishnamoorthy and V. Rajagopalan were two of 19 partne...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pioneer Engineering Syndicate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR503(Mad)
K. A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the order passed by this court dated March 3, 1981, in T.C.P. Nos. 24 and 25 of 1980, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the sum of Rs. 1,16,921 and Rs. 51,844 being the amounts due to the assessee in respect of Godawari Barrage Works and Musi Bridge Works, respectively, for the assessment year 1974-75 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting a sum of Rs. 57,927 being the amount due to the assessee in respect of the Musi Bridge Works for the assessment year 1975-76 ?' 2. For the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee filed a return claiming loss of Rs. 22,371 under the head 'Business' without taking into consideration the dep...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »