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.
Canara Bank Vs. S. Vasundara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ689Mad; (1997)IMLJ270
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 1757 of 1987 is filed against the final order of Mohan, J (as he then was) in Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987, dated September 15, 1987. Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987 was filed by Mrs. S. Vasundara against an order of suspension issued by the Bank, dated July 9, 1985, which reads as follows : 'DPL MDC-CHF/2480Proceedings of the General ManagerSub :- Enquiry against Smt. S. Vasundara(12273) Accountant. Whereas departmental proceedings are contemplated against Smt. S. Vasundara (12273), Accountant for certain acts of misconduct on her part while functioning as Accountant of Grand Central, Madurai Branch; Whereas it is considered necessary and expedient to place the said Smt. S. Vasundara, Accountant, under suspension pending enquiry; Now therefore, the said Smt. S. Vasundara is hereby suspended from service of the Bank with effect from the date of service of this proceedings until further orders; She, shall, during the suspension period be entitl...
Chinnakannu Pandithar Vs. Kasturi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC460; (1997)IMLJ307
ORDERAbdul Wahab, J.1. This revision has been preferred by the unsuccessful tenant under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1927.2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner became a tenant of the land measuring an extent of 400 sq. feet in the year 1956. The land then belonged to one Duraisamy Mudaliar. As per the tenancy agreement dated 12.4.1956 with the said Duraisamy Mudaliar, the petitioner put up a hut and continued to be a tenant under the said Duraisamy Mudaliar on a monthly rent of Rs. 3 and 8 annas. In 1984, the respondent attempted to put fence, the petitioner objected to the same. At this stage, the petitioner sent a notice under Exhibit R-1 to remove the fence. For the said notice, the respondent sent a reply under Exhibit R- 2, stating that there was no trespass on 24.6.1984 and the property was a vacant land comprised in T.S.No. 53/2B. Gengaiamman Koil Street, Puliyur, Kodambakkam and was purchased by the respondent from the rightful owners under...
The Canara Bank, Represented by the Chairman and Managing Director and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ270
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. W.A. No. 1757 of 1987 : Writ Appeal No. 1757 of 1987 is filed against the final order of Mohan, J. (as he then was) in Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987, dated 15.9.1987. Writ Petition No. 4318 of 1987 was filed by Mrs. S. Vasundara against an order of suspension issued by the Bank, dated 9,7.1985, which reads as follows:D.P.L. M.D.C-C.H.F/2480PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MANAGERSub: Enquiry against Smt. S. Vasundara (12273) Accountant.___Whereas departmental proceedings are contemplated against Smt. S. Vasundara (12273), Accountant for certain acts of misconduct on her part while functioning as Accountant of Grand Central Madurai Branch;Whereas it is considered necessary and expedient to place the said Smt. S. Vasundara, Accountant, under suspension pending enquiry;Now therefore, the said Smt. S. Vasundara is hereby suspended from the service of the Bank with effect from the date of service of this proceedings until further orders;She, shall, during the suspension peri...
R. Srinivasan Vs. the Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ112
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The writ petitioner who is a member of third respondent Society has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first and second respondents herein made in C.M.A. (C.S.) No. 2 of 1990, dated 5.6.199 land in Award No. 555/88-89, dated 3.10.1989 respectively and to quash the same in so far as they are against the petitioner herein.2. The third respondent in the said writ petition has filed C.R.P. No. 1680 of 1983 challenging the reduction of rate of interest in C.M.A. No. 2 of 1990 on the file of the Co-operative Tribunal, Madurai.3. If the writ petitioner succeeds in his claim, automatically the civil revision petition filed by the third respondent has to be dismissed. In view of the controversy involved, both the matters can be disposed of jointly.4. I shall first deal with the facts relating to the writ petition. The petitioner became a member of the third respondent Society after payi...
Asoka Betelnut Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. M.K. Chandrakanth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas274(Mad)
Abdul Hadi J. 1. This original side appeal by the three respondents in C.P. No. 65 of 1987 which was filed by the respondent herein under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is against the final order therein dated January 12, 1996, directing the first appellant company to purchase the shares held by the respondent herein and his 'wife and children' and to set off against that purchase price the amounts 'lawfully due' to the first appellant company from the respondent herein, after valuing the said shares by taking into account the paid-up capital as on the date of the institution of the petition and the 'present market value' of the assets owned by the said company less its liabilities as on December 31, 1995. 2. Even though the said impugned order held that the allegations of mismanagement made against the appellants 'have not been established' and even though it also held that the conduct of the respondent herein towards the aboves...
Ammasi Vs. Tmt. Amaravathi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2963
ORDER1. The order granting maintenance passed in R.C. No. 21 of 1992 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Dindigul, on the averments filed by the wife against the order dismissing her claim in M.C. No. 8 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, is challenged in this revision by the husband. 2. On behalf of the wife before the lower Court, four witnesses were examined and Exs. P.I. to P. 7 were filed. On behalf of the husband/petitioner witnesses R.W. 1 the husband and R.Ws. 2 to 5 were examined. Exs. R. 1 to R. 8 were marked. 3. The case of the wife before the lower Court is that she was deserted by the husband after the child was born. Admittedly, the husband/petitioner is working in an army. To prove her case, the witnesses examined on behalf of the wife would speak about the marriage and the birth of the child. But the case of the husband through his witnesses that the child was not born to him and the wife was living in adultery with one Govindaraju. On considerati...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1996
Reported in: (1996)134CTR(Mad)222; [1996]218ITR713(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions dt. 20th April, 1982 of this Court in TC Nos. 370 and 371 of 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for 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 holding that the reassessment was invalid 2. Whether the Tribunal is justified in not proceeding to enter into the merits of the reassessment ?' 2. In the asst. yr. 1968-69, the original assessment was made on 29th February, 1972. Later on, the basis of the information available from the audit that excessive relief was granted to the assessee in respect of soda ash project, that the income under s. 41(1) was underassessed and that the disallowance under s. 40(c)(iii) was not correctly computed, the assessment was reopened under s. 147(b) of the Act. The ITO passed reassessment order on 30th March, 1974, adding the following : Rs.(1) ...
Sivananda Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR197(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following question, for the opinion of this court, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the case circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 43A, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 93,223 and Rs. 1,13,085 for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, respectively, being the excess of the instalments paid on account of fluctuation in exchange rates, was not allowable as a revenue expenditure ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited industrial company. It had borrowed a loan for financing the import of machinery from West Germany. The repayment of the loan was to be made in instalments spread over several years. On account of fluctuations in the exchange rate, the amount of instalments repaid in the period relevant to the assessment year 1975-76 was greater than the amou...
Sree Meenakshi Mills Employees' Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Vs. De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1297Mad
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition is filed for quashing the order dated May 10, 1987 of the first respondent in TSE Case No. 14 of 1986.2. The Petitioner's case is that the second respondent was appointed as Secretary-in-charge of the petitioner. 11 charges were framed against him, which are relating to financial irregularities. He was called upon to explain on August 12, 1985. An advocate was appointed as Enquiry Officer, The enquiry commenced on September 16, 1985 and at the request of the 2nd respondent, it was adjourned to May 10, 1985 and thereafter, it was adjourned from time to time. However, M.W. 1 was examined. It continued on November 27, 1985. The enquiry was then posted to December 7, 1985 and at the request of 2nd respondent it was adjourned to December 15, 1985. On December 15, 1985, the 2nd respondent did not appear nor did he send any intimation about the reasons for his non-appearance. However, the other employee Murugesan appeared for the enquiry. The enq...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Egmore Benefits Society Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: [1999]236ITR459(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this Court in Tax Case Petition No. 519 of 1980, dt. 9th March, 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 the provisions of s. 36(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,93,419 being bonus paid to the employees in excess of 20 per cent of the salary made in the assessment for the year 1976-77 ?' 2. The assessee is a non-banking financial institution and it carries on business in moneylending on pledges. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1976-77, it has paid a sum of Rs. 3,79,204 as bonus to its employees and claimed the same as a deduction. The assessee contended that it was uniformly paying bonus to its employees at the rate of five months salary from 1969 onwards and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »