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.
Neo Intex Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC168
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 29th August, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 8635 of 1996. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to implement the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, dated 18-5-1996. The learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the following direction :- 'I have considered the respective contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. It is well settled by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Limited - : 1991ECR486(SC) that the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras is binding on all the subordinate authorities working within its jurisdiction. Further, the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the highest appellate authority should be followed unreserv...
T. Rajagopalan Vs. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC634; (1997)ILLJ517Mad; (1997)IMLJ314
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarifed mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (for short, 'SIPCOT'), the first respondent herein in proceedings No.E-I/Misc./8/87 dated December 20, 1990, quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service, an Assistant Manager in SIPCOT, or any other equivalent post with all attendant benefits.2. The case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he is seeking to challenge the legality of the impugned order of compulsory retirement passed by the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT, on the ground that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Articles of Association and law. 3. The petitioner was appointed originally as Tracer in the construction branch of Industries and Commerce Department in the Directorate...
T. Rajagopalan Vs. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ314
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited (for short, 'SIPCOT), the first respondent herein in proceedings No. E-1/Misc/8/87, dated 20,12.1990, quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service as Assistant Manager in SIPCOT, or any other equivalent post with all the attendant benefits.2. The case of the petitioner has pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he is seeking to challenge the legality of the impugned order of compulsory retirement passed by the Board of Directors of the SIPCOT, on the ground that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Article s of Association and law.3. The petitioner was appointed originally as Tracer in the construction branch of Industries and Commerce Department in t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V. Krishnamoorthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1996
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)91
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :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 assessees 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 Tribunals 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 partners in t...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T. Narayanaswami Pather
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR529(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP No. 247 of 1978, dt. 23rd February, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two questions, 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 justified in reducing the penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) to Rs. 2,000 which is less than Rs. 45,988 being the minimum imposable for the asst. yr. 1965-66 (2) Whether, on the facts obtaining in this case and having regard to the provisions of the Pondicherry (Taxation and Concessions) Order, 1964, the Tribunal was within its powers to reduce the penalty below the minimum prescribed especially when such powers wasted with the IAC ?' 2. The assessee late Sri Narayanaswami Pather did not disclose income from investments in the name of Smt. Nagalakshmi Ammal, his wife and Sri Subramanian, his son. The original assessment for the asst. yr. 1965-66 was reopened and the fo...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Vrm. Sm. Karuppan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR470(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions of law, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the additions made by the WTO to the extent of Rs. 55,000 and Rs. 36,666 for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 respectively 2. Whether, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to further exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) in respect of the individual assets even though the same exemption has been granted while working out the assessee's share of interest in the firm of M/s. A.M.K.M.K. Firm, Alorstar 2. The assessee Sri V. RM. SM Karuppan Chettiar is assessed to income-tax as well as wealth-tax. His wealth consisting of movable and immovable properties is situated both in India and outside India. For the asst. yr. 1975-76 he has filed a return discl...
Varadaraja Pillai Vs. Muthusamy Pillai and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC523
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 119 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Tindivanam.2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows: The first defendant is the father and defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers of the plaintiff. They constitute an undivided Hindu joint family, which owned the suit properties. Plaintiff and defendants arc in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The first defendant was acting as the manager of the joint family and managing the properties on behalf of his sons, he has been paying kist and in possession of the property for himself and on behalf of all the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. All of them are entitled to l/4th share in the suit properties. The plaintiff is a cardiac patient. He is both weak physically and mentally. He cannot attend to his normal life and was depending upon his father and brothers always. The defendants represented to the plaintiff that the creditors are pressing them for payme...
Varadaraja Pillai Vs. Muthusamy Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ54
Govardhan, J.1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 119 of 1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Tindivanam.2. The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows: The first defendant is the father and defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers of the plaintiff. They constitute an undivided Hindu joint family, which owned the suit properties. Plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The first defendant was acting as the manager of the joint family and managing the properties or behalf of his sons, he has been paying kist and in possession of the property for himself and on behalf of all the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. All of them are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties. The plaintiff is a cardiac patient. He is both weak physically and mentally! He cannot attend to his normal life and was depending upon his father and brothers always. The defendants represented to the plaintiff that the creditors are pressing them for payment of...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shyamala and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ142
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.l63 of l983.2. The petitioner in their petition contend as follows: The first petitioner is the wife and the petitioners 2 to 9 are the children of the deceased Seethapathy who was employed in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Mettur Electricity System as a Foreman on a salary of Rs. 1,103.20 per month. On 2.11.1982 at about 9.30 a.m., Seethapathy was proceeding from Athur to Kattukottai on his cycle in the Salem-Cuddalore Main Road. Taxi bearing registration No. M.D.G. 1990 and driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him from. behind as a result of which, he sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The respondents 1 and 2 are the owner and the insurer of the taxi. Deceased was aged 52 years at the time of his death. The petitioners make a claim for Rs. 1 lakh.3. The second respondent in his counter contends as follows: The car M.D.G. 1990 ha...
C. Keval Chand and anr. Vs. Karuppanna Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ459
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. In all these revisions arising under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, landlords are the revision petitioners.2. Except in C.R.P. No. 2677 of 1989, the findings of the authorities below are concurrent, against the landlords. In C.R.P. No. 2677 of 1989, Rent Controller found that the claim of the landlords is bona fide and that they require the building for their own occupation. When the matter was taken in appeal, the appellate authority, in view of its judgment in the appeals which are the subject-matter of revision in C.R.P. Nos.2674,2675 and 2676 of 1969, allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim. Hence, the revision petitions by the landlords.3. In all these cases, a common question arises, i.e., whether the building is required bona fide, for the own occupation of the landlords. Even though separate eviction petitions have been filed, tenants are in occupation of portions of the same structure having single room tenements, for reside...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »