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. Nachiappan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR98(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 325 and 316 of 1981 dt. 23rd August, 1982 the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the principle in CIT vs . Bai Shirinbai K. Kooka : [1962]46ITR86(SC) , would not apply ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and the assessment years involved in this reference are 1972-73 and 1973-74 for which two previous years ended on 30th June, 1972 respectively. The assessee is a divided member of an HUF of which M.L.M. Mahalingam Chettiar was the Karta. The Karta of the Joint family purchased certain lands in Kodambakkam, Madras prior to 1954. They were then agricultural lands. These agricultural lands were converted into house sites during the asst. yr. 1961-62. For the purpose of wealth-tax for that year the ...
Swarna Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Prev.), Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(90)ELT297(Mad)
ORDER1. These three Writ Petitions contain identical prayers for certiorarified mandamus, to quash the challan dated 3-10-1996, being purported direct the third respondent to return the documents seized from the petitioner in letter dated 24-9-1996. 2. The brief facts of the writ petitions are as follows :- The petitioner in each writ petition is a manufacturer of aluminium circles. Aluminium circles of the thickness of and exceeding 0.2 mm was exempt from excise duty. The petitioner being a Small Scale, it was clearing aluminium circle products. It was entitled to exemption under the General Notification 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. There was search on 24-9-1996 by the third respondent. There was seizure of some documents under letter dated 24-9-1996. Subsequent to the seizure, when the petitioner approached the third respondent, he directed the petitioner to pay the duty as per the challan. There is no assessment at all. Hence, the writ petitions. 3. The contention urged by the learne...
ignasiammal Vs. Mrs. Fathima Beevi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC313
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant.2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction is respect of the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 resisted the same before the trial court. The trial Court has framed as many as five issues on the pleadings and one additional issue and has held that the plaintiff has no cause of action, the first defendant has got a right in the common pathway, the first defendant has a right to let out his eaves water on the northern extreme of the five feet space running north-south and the case of the first defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to any of these three reliefs has been proved and dismissed the suit. As against the said judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal to the Sub Court, Srivilliputhu.3. In the Sub Court, the appellant has filed an interlocutory application in I.A. No. 143 of 1990 under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reception of a sa...
Sivanthipatti Nadar Higher Secondary School, Represented by Its Secret ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ302
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. At the stage of admission 1st respondent who is the contesting respondent, has entered caveat. Respondents 2 and 3 are the statutory authorities. Learned Government Pleader to appear for them.2. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.3. Learned single judge has interfered with the orders of respondents 2 and 3 accepting the resignation submitted by the 1st respondent as Headmaster of the School in question.4. The 1st respondent submitted the resignation on 1.10.1994 to be effective from 31.12.94. The School Committee considered the resignation and accepted the same and forwarded it to the Chief Educational Officer, who is the authority for approval. The Chief Educational Officer by the order dated 14.6.1995 after notice to the 1st respondent, inquired into the matter and found that the 1st respondent had submitted the resignation and it was written and signed by the 1st respondent himself without any coercion.5. In the app...
State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the District Collector Vs. A.V. Yag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ473
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above appeal really arises under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963) though by mistake in the Memorandum of grounds of appeal the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 is given. The claim in respect of the land in question had been the subject-matter of appeals before the Tribunal below on earlier occasions and by virtue of the orders passed in second round of appeal, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thanjavur has taken up the matter for consideration afresh. After considering the claims of both parties viz., the respondents/claimant and the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the District Collector, Thanjavur, the Original Authority by his proceedings dated 1.6.82 held that there is no scope for granting patta in respect of the land in question under Sections 9, 10 or 11 and that by virtue of Section 12(1) and under Section 3(b) of the Act, the lands vest absolutely free of encum...
Mohana and ors. Vs. Anandavelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC114
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The order of reduction of maintenance by the Sessions Court, is challenged in this revision.2. The 1st petitioner/wife, on her behalf and on behalf of the two minor children filed an application for maintenance, claiming the same from her husband, the respondent herein. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, after conducting enquiry in M.C. No. 18 of 1990, awarded maintenance, directing the respondent/husband, to pay Rs. 300/- p.m., to the 1st petitioner/ wife and Rs. 250/- each to the minor children/petitioners 2 and 3 herein. Aggrieved over this, the respondent/husband, filed a revision in Crl.R.C. No. 10 of 1992,on the file of Sessions Judge, Chengalpat. On hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 300/-to Rs. 250/-tothewifeandfromRs.250/-to Rs. 125/- to the minor children, petitioners 2 and 3, totalling Rs. 500/-per month.3. Mr. P. Ravishankar, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted th...
Deivanai Achi @ A.A. Janaki Achi Vs. Kader Bibi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: I(1997)DMC391
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in E.A. No. 9 of 1985.2. The petitioner has filed the petition contending as follows : The petitioner is the wife of the second respondent. The first respondent has obtained a decree in C.S. No. 189 of 1982 against the second respondent and others for Rs. 1,13,263.49. The first respondent has proceeded against the second respondent alone for recovery of the amount due. The debt has been incurred by the second respondent for his bad habits, and it is known to the first respondent also. It is not binding on the petitioner viz., the wife of the second respondent. The second respondent has to maintain the petitioner, she being his wife. She requires a sum of Rs. 300/- towards maintenance. Since the second respondent is mentally unsound, he is unable to maintain her. Hence the petition for awarding a maintenance ofRs. 300/- to the petitioner and a charge over the properties attached b...
S. Kannan Vs. P. Manoharan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC733
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 393 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Madurai, is the revision petitioner.2. Eviction was sought against the tenant on the ground that he has defaulted in paying rent at the rate of Rs. 350 per mensem from the month of June, 1981 and the default continued even on the date of petition. It was further said that the premises is very old, i.e., 70 years old, and the front portion of the building is fairly in good condition, but the rest of the building has developed cracks, and the rear portion of the building is in a dangerous position and is likely to fall down at any time. It was further said mat the building has to be demolished and reconstructed, and for such purposes, the landlord has got means. The landlord is in a position to start the reconstruction work within a month from the date of eviction.3. A counter-statement was filed by the tenant wherein he disputed both the claims. He said that he has not...
Deivanai Achi Alias A.A. Janaki Achi Vs. Tmt. Kader Bibi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC109
ORDERGovardhan, J. 1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in E.A.No. 9 of 1985.2. The petitioner has filed the petition contending as follows: The petitioner is the wife of the second respondent. The first respondent has obtained a decree in C.S.No. 189 of 1982 against the second respondent and others for Rs. 1,13,263.49. The first respondent has proceeded against the second respondent alone for recovery of the amount due. The debt has been incurred by the second respondent for his bad habits, and it is known to the first respondent also. It is not binding on the petitioner viz., the wife of the second respondent. The second respondent has to maintain the petitioner, she being his wife. She requires a sum of Rs. 300 towards maintenance. Since the second respondent is mentally unsound, he is unable to maintain her. Hence the petition for awarding a maintenance of Rs. 300 to the petitioner and a charge over the properties attached b...
Gayathri Malathi. N and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC616
ORDERKanakaraj, J. 1. All these writ petitions have been filed by unsuccessful applicants to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1996-97 for consideration under Paragraph 3.5 (ii) of the Prospectus issued in respect of the Medical Colleges. Since the entire case of the petitioners rests on the claim under the said paragraph I proceed to quote the said paragraph.'3.5 (ii) Seats reserved for children whose parents worked for the enrichment, Propagation and Development of Tamil Language and significant contribution made to Tamil Society culture and Literature. No. of Seats reserved in M.B.B.S. 6 A Committee of Tamil scholars constituted by the Government will examine the claims of the parents whose children have applied for admission under this special category and offer their recommendations regarding their eligibility for consideration under this special category. The candidates should submit a Certificate from an Officer of the revenue Department not below the rank of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »