Chennai Court November 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.
A.S.A. Arumugam and anr. Vs. Ramalinga Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC384
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants is O.S.No.430 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Manamadurai, are the appellants.2. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was one for declaration that they are entitled to the scheduled properties and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by them in favour of the appellants in 16.6.1979 are sham and nominal and the same does not convey any title. It is alleged that the appellants and their father are doing commission business at Vridhunagar and in the course of that business, the plaintiffs also got acquainted with them, that during the course of transactions, they had to execute two sale deeds in favour of the appellants, which, according to them, are sham and nominal and they continued to be in their possession and enjoyment.3. In the written statement filed by the app...
G. Kumarasamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC120
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a writ of mandamus forbearing the first respondent from issuing a warrant of appointment appointing the 4th respondent as a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and to pass such further order or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner states that he has presented this writ petition in his own capacity as a person aggrieved by the various acts of the 4th respondent and also in the capacity of a responsible citizen of India, former Secretary of Tamil Nadu Congress Party I and former Editor and Publisher of a Tamil Daily etc. in the public interest as a public interest litigation.3. In the writ petition, he has given details of various litigations between himself and the 4th respondent on civil as well as on criminal sides. He has also given particulars of certain litigations pending between the...
Vijaya Vs. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC67
Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioner wife filed an application for maintenance in M.C. No. 1 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharapuram. The Magistrate after consideration of the materials produced by both the wife and the husband awarded a maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month. Aggrieved over this order, the respondent husband filed a Revision in C.R.P.No. 18 of 1997 on the file of the Sessions Court at Erode. After thorough perusal of the records the Sessions Court held that she is entitled to maintenance, but however, he reduced the maintenance amount of Rs. 150/- to Rs. 100/- per month. As against the order of reduction of the maintenance amount this revision has been preferred by the petitioner wife.2. I heard Mr. Venkatesan, Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent, though summons were served; did not choose to be present before this Court.3. She petitioner wife was married to the respondent about ten years back; but no child was born. After ...
Maduraiveeran and anr. Vs. Subburaj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1996
Reported in: 1998ACJ765
C.V. Govardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai in M.C.O.P. No. 39 of 1984.2. The petitioners are the parents of Pichaigani who was working as a loadman in Palani Murugan lorry TNU 9630. On 25.7.1983 at 7.30 a.m., in Pandalgudi near Kalguvari, the driver of the said lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased Pichaigani, who was sitting in the lorry, was thrown out and the lorry ran over him. Pichaigani died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. He was earning a sum of Rs. 450/- per month. The petitioners have therefore come forward with this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 51,000/-.3. The respondent No. 3, insurance company filed a counter statement disputing its liability contending that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry.4. On the above pleadings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held an enquiry and gave a finding that the accident was due to th...
Maduraiveeran and anr. Vs. Subburaj (Driver) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ275
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai in M.C.O.P. No. 39ofl984.2. The petitioners are the parents of Pichaigani who was working as a loadman in Palani Murugan Lorry TNU. 9630. On 25.7.1983 at 7.30 a.m., in Pandalgudi near Kalguvari, the driver of the said lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner, and the deceased Pichaigani who was sitting in the lorry was thrown out and the lorry ran over him. Pichaigani died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. He was earning a sum of Rs. 450 per month. The petitioners have therefore come forward with this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 51,000.3. The third respondent Insurance Company filed a counter statement disputing their liability contending that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry.4. On the above pleadings, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held an enquiry and gave a finding that the accident was due to the rash and...
Madras Race Club Vs. Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas754(Mad)
Jagadeesan, J.1. The Madras Race Club has filed the present appeal against the order of the Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Madras, in C.P. No. 660/167/SRB/96, dated August 17, 1996. The respondent herein, a member of the club, has filed a petition under section 167 of the Companies Act in C.P. No. 660 of 1996 to hold the annual general meeting for the years 1986 to 1996. 2. The case of the respondent is that as per the Tamil Nadu Horse Races (Abolition of Wagering or Betting) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), horse racing was sought to be banned. The appellant herein challenged the validity of the said Act before this court. This court upheld the validity of the said Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and obtained an order of stay of the operation of the said Act. When the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed another enactment, viz., the Madras Race Club (Ac...
A. Somu thevar Vs. Sivakumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC57
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Generally this Court is reluctant to disturb an acquittal recorded by the trial Court, in a revision against such acquittal, that too at the instance of a private party, when the State has not preferred any appeal. However, it becomes a duty to do so, inter alia when incriminating evidence of a satisfactory character is completely ignored or overlooked, and when there is a total misreading of evidence, resulting in an unwarranted acquittal, in order to redeem the course of justice, so that the grave injustice occasioned could be set right. The present is one of such cases.2. The unfortunate petitioner, who is the father of the deceased a young son of 20 years old, and the first informant examined as P.W.1, has knocked at the doors of this Court, by presenting this revision, challenging the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No. 63 of 1991, on the file of the Sessions Court, Thanjavur, in respect of an offence under Section 302, I.P.C.3. The brief facts of the ...
B. thenmozhi Vs. P.M. Balasubramanian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1996
Reported in: II(1996)ACC669
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The motor accident victim who had sustained injuries in the accident, said to have taken place on 23.8.1991 against the dismissal of her application to enhance the claim from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-, has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. It is seen that on 23.8.1991 at about 9.30 a.m. the petitioner claimant (9 years old at the time of accident) who sustained the injuries, initially filed a claim within three days of the accident claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. By the present application, M.P. No. 430 of 1994, after realising that her earlier claim is very low and in view of the subsequent developments, namely, medical expenses for skin grafting, etc., she has requested the court below to permit her to enhance her claim to Rs. 5,00,000/-.2. The said application was resisted by the insurance company/respondent No. 2 in the said O.P. contending that the claimant has not adduced any a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kasturi and Sons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR173(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, r/w s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to Explanation under r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount standing to the credit of Debenture Redemption Sinking Fund should be treated as 'reserve' only and not as 'provision' and, hence, should be taken as capital for levy of surtax ?' 2. For the two asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1976-77, the assessee's relevant previous years are the periods from 1st July, 1972 to 30th June, 1973 and 1st July, 1974 to 30th June, 1975 respectively. For the asst. yr. 1974-75, in computing the capital base as on 1st July, 1972, the first day of the previous year under the Second Schedule of the Surtax Act, the ITO excluded the D...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rayalaseema Passenger and Goods Transpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: [1998]332ITR230(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court dt. 30th November, 1981, in TCP No. 183 of 1981, 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 and having regard to r. 104 of the IT Rules, 1962, r/w s. 36(1)(v) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,499 representing the difference between the actual payment made to the approved gratuity fund towards initial contribution and the actuarial liability for the same should be allowed as a deduction while computing the income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested. At the time of completion of the original assessment of the assessee relating to the asst. yr. 1973-74, the assessee made a claim of Rs. 1,93,756 being the initial contribu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »