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.
M.K. Varappan Vs. Sri Lakshminarayana Venugopalaswamy Temple by Its Ex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ23
ORDERRaju, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 1516 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif's Court Coimbatore who succeeded before the trial court but lost before the learned first appellate Judge is the appellant in the above second appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit before the trial court for permanent injunction against the defendant/appellant from altering the superstructure and attempting to put up a puccamasonary construction with a foundation. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that the plaintiff temple was the owner of the vacant site with the building in O.S. No. 545/3 in Coimbatore town, that it was leased Out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 payable on the first of every English calendar month, that the defendant being a tenant has no right to remove the superstructures on the property but in spite of all these the defendant suddenly removed the tiled structure and attempted to put up a pucca masonary construction necessitating the fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Rayalaseema Passenger and Goods Transpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR332(Mad); [1998]95TAXMAN90(Mad)
K. A. THANIKKACHALAM J. - Pursuant to the direction given by this court dated November 30, 1981, in T.C. No. 183 of 1981, 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 fact and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to rule 104 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with section 36(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate 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 assessment year 1973-74 ?'The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. At the time of completion of the original assessment of the assessee relating to the assessment year 1973-74, the a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR203(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following six questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1974-75, 1976-77 and 1977-78. 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the ITO's disallowance of mess expenses on the ground that it is not entertainment expenditure for the asst. yr. 1974-75 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the retrospective amendment made to s. 37(1) by the Finance Act, 1983 w.e.f. 1st April, 1976, the Tribunal is justified in disallowing the mess expenses of Rs. 26,000 and Rs. 28,595, respectively, for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 on the ground that it is not entertainment expenditure 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that interest paid to Media Banka, Intal Viscose and IDBI on monies borrow...
Shanmugam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC212
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The appellant Shanmugam challenges the judgment in S.C. No. 34 of 1987 on the file of Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, convicting him for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment, in this appeal.2. The indictment is that on 20.12.1986 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant set fire to the body of the victim, his wife Tamilselvi, aged about 26 years, after pouring kerosene over her, resulting in herdeathatabout4.00p.rn. on 21.12.1986 at Peravoorani Government Hospital.3. The brief facts are as follows :(i) The appellant Shanmugam is the husband of the unfortunate victim deceased Tamilselvi. By about seven years prior to the occurrence, the appellant married the deceased. Out of their wedlock, two sons, P.W.2 Ilavarasan and one Ilayaraja, were born. They were living together in the Village Padappanarvayal within the police jurisdiction of Peravoorani.(ii) The accused is an agriculturist by profession. He has got lande...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. R.K. Swamy Advertising Associates (P) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR440(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance towards the remuneration paid to Sri R. K. Swamy, the managing director of the company, should be regulated in terms of s. 40(c) and not as per s. 40A(5) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The reference applications relate to the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77. For these two years, the ITO made additions of Rs. 19,164 and Rs. 19,355 respectively in respect of the remuneration paid to the managing director, Shri R. K. Swamy, under s. 40(c)(i)(ii), r/w s. 40A(5) of the Act. 3. On the assessee's appeal, the CIT(A) held that the excess to be disallowed, if any, should be computed under s. 40(c) of the Act, which applies specifically to...
Ramasamy Reddiar Vs. Angamuthu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC247
ORDERRaju, J. 1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 2041 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Namakkal, who succeeded before the learned trial Judge, but lost before the learned first appellate Judge, is the appellant in the above second appeal. The suit was filed before the trial Court on 13.11.1979 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2.997.50 said to be due from the defendants to the plaintiff with subsequent interest.2. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that the first respondent herein filed a petition before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, in W.C.No. 203 of 1970 claiming compensation on the ground of personal loss of his earning capacity on the ground of loss of both hands due to an accident met by him while digging a well of the plaintiff, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is stated that the plaintiff was awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,720 by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, as against whic...
Sannasi and ors. Vs. Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundaresswarar Temple, Through ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ237
Raju, J.1. The appellants who claimed to have been in possession and doing cultivation of the lands in question were able to get patta before the Settlement Officer, Branch Settlement Officer, Madurai-2, but lost before the tribunal below have filed the appeal under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963.2. The lands in question are indisputably Minor Inam lands and the Inam in question comprised of both warams in favour of the respondent temple. The appellants even on an earlier occasion were granted patta under Section 9(1)(i) of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 by the original authority on the basis that the temple in respect of which the Inam grant was made ceased to exist several decades ago and no one could be granted patta under Section 9, since there was no alienation of the lands to the ryots by the institution or any one representing the institution as such. On that view and on the assumption that the appellants have been enjoying...
Kesuram Vs. Saraswathy and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2525
ORDER1. This revision by the husband is directed against the order of maintenance awarded to the wife and children. 2. The only ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, in this revision is that the wife was not able to establish before the Court below, that there was a justifiable cause for her to live separately. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited two decisions in Tota v. Musammat Durgi, (1929) 30 Cri LJ 861, and Mitanjali Mohanty v. Fanendra Mohanty, : 1992(II)OLR554 . In the former decision, the High Court of Lahore, has held that the wife who declines to go to her husband and live with him in his house without any sufficient reason is not entitled to maintenance. In the latter decision, A. Pasayat, J. of Orissa High Court, has held that the wife has failed to establish and substantiate the allegation of apprehension of danger to her life, and refusal to accept the offer of her husband for restoration of company has not be...
Narkarunai Flora Sahayarani Vs. M. Uthirayasami Alias M.U. Swami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC113; I(1997)DMC577
ORDER1. This revision filed by the wife before this Court is directed against the order of Crl. R.P. No. 145 of 1991, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, rejecting the claim of maintenance, by setting aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettur, in M.C. No. 9 of 1989, who awarded maintenance to the petitioner herein at Rs. 350/- per month. 2. On the petition filed by the wife under Section 125, Cr. P.C., on the ground of dowry torture, learned Judicial Magistrate, Mettur, after enquiry, directed the husband/Respondent to pay a maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month to the wife/petitioner. Being aggrieved at this, the respondent/husband field Crl. R.P. No. 145 of 1991, on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge, Salem, who in turn allowed the revision, by his order dated 23-3-1992, holding that the wife/petitioner is not entitled to maintenance. Hence the present revision. 3. The main reason given in the order of revision Court, for disallowing the claim of the petitioner for...
Rathina Marie Prema and Another Vs. Marcel Fernandos
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)512; 1997CriLJ2524; 1997(1)CTC142; I(1998)DMC26
ORDER1. The 1st petitioner/wife and the 2nd petitioner/minor son, approached this Court, challenging the order of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, made in Crl.R.P. No. 2 of 1989, dated 16-11-1990, dismissing the claim of maintenance by the petitioners herein by setting aside the order of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, made in M. C. No. 4 of 1987, dated 28-10-1998, who awarded maintenance to the wife and minor child. 2. The wife Rathina Marie Prema, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor son Arokianathan, filed a petition claiming maintenance from her husband, the respondent herein. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is a divorcee. In the divorce proceedings in O.P. No. 112 of 1983, on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Pondicherry, a joint memo - Ex. R.3, was filed, under which the 1st petitioner/wife had waived her claim for maintenance. However, the trial Court without considering that document, awarded maintenance at Rs. 125/= to the wife and Rs. 75/...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »