Chennai Court December 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.
P.R. Sundaravadanam and 2 ors. Vs. P.R. Vimala and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC147; (1997)IMLJ618
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J. 1. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Letters Patent Appeal.2. L.P.A.No. 69 of 1994 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the order of K. Swamidurai, J., in CMP. No. 15486 of 1993 in A.S.SR.No. 97114 of 1952 (now numbered as Appeal No. 127 of 1994) dated 12.1.1994 condoning the delay of 3,670 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and final decree dated 6.10.1982 in I.A.No. 19362 of 1980 in O.S.No. 2443 of 1969 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. C.M.P.No.6549 of 1995 has been filed by the appellants to receive the documents filed as additional evidence. Appeal No. 127 of 1994 has been filed by the respondents against the final decree passed in I.A.No. 19362 of 1980 in O.S.No. 2433 of 1969 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.3. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 6.9.1972 on a memo of compromise. The appellants filed a petiti...
Thavamani Vs. the Special Tahsildar (Adw) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC571
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This appeal is by the second claimant in L.A.C.P.No. 30 of 1989, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga.2. An area of 23 cents of land in Survey No. 600/3-A was acquired by Government. Appellant as well as second respondent herein claimed right over the compensation amount.3. Facts which have given rise to this Appeal may be summarized as follows:-The property originally belonged to one Chinnammal. Her husband's name is Muthuraman. It is the case that Chinnammal has no issues, but she had a sister. That sister had a son, who is the father of appellant and second respondent. His name is Nallathambi. Second respondent is the only son of Nallathambi. While second respondent was about two years old, his mother died and thereafter Nallathambi married one Lakshmi through whom the appellant was born. As stated already, the property admittedly belonged to Chinnammal. She died sometime before 1965. Nallathambi also died sometime between 1975 and 1980.4. In thi...
Ammal Pillai and ors. Vs. Varadarajulu Complex a Partnership Firm Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ626
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the tenants in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1984, on the file of Rent Controller, Dindigul. Eviction was sought against the petitioners on the ground that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.2. Initially in the eviction petition, when it was filed, there was no averment therein that the building is in a bad shape, or that it requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. In the petition, it was originally stated that the landlords wanted to put up a building' complex after demolishing the entire structure. It is also alleged that the State Bank of India is intending to have their office in that building, and being an important locality, they wanted to demolish the entire structure and put that area to better use. Later, by amendment, necessary averments that are required under Section 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act were incorporated, and it was further contended that the Karur Vysya Bank has offered financ...
The Church of South India Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association, Tuti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ161
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. Since the issue involved in all the civil revision petitions are common, they are being dealt with by way of common order.2. The respondents herein filed different suits against the petitioner herein in respect of different properties seeking a decree for injunction. The trial court dismissed all the suits. Aggrieved by the same the respondent filed appeals A.S. Nos. 132 of 137 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin. While these appeals were pending, the respondents herein filed I.A. Nos. 268 of 173 in A.S. No. 137 of 1990respectively seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the ground that the petitioner herein had filed another suit O.S. No. 54 of 1990 against the Government for declaration and injunction and since the respondents did not expect that the petitioner herein would divest their ownership in respect of the suit properties, he did not ask for declaration and hence the suits have been filed only for bare inj...
P.R. Sundaravadanam and ors. Vs. P.R. Vimala and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ618
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the Letters Patent Appeal.2. L.P.A. No. 69 of 1994 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the order of K. Swamidurai, J., in C.M.P. No. 15486 of 1993 in A.S.S.R. No. 97114 of 1992 (now numbered as Appeal No. 127 of 1994) dated 12.1.1994 condoning the delay of 3,670 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and final decree dated 6.10.1982 in I.A. No. 19362 of 1980 in O.S. No. 2443 of 1969 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. C.M.P. No. 6549 of 1995 has been filed by the appellants to receive the documents filed as additional evidence. Appeal No. 127 of 1994 has been filed by the respondents against the final decree passed in I.A. No. 19362 of 1980 in O.S. No. 2433 of 1969 on the file of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.3. A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 6.9.1972 on a memo of compromise. The appellants filed a p...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. L. Boriah Gowder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR429(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court for the assessment year 1976-77 under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's status should be adopted as that of a Hindu undivided family for purposes of his wealth-tax assessment ?' 2. The point for consideration is whether the assessee's status should be adopted as that of a Hindu undivided family for the purposes of his wealth-tax assessment. The Tribunal held that the status of the assessee is that of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1976-77. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in the case of the same assessee in the assessment years 1972-73 to 1974-75, wherein this court held that the status of the assessee is not that of a Hindu undivided family. This decision was in CIT v. L...
S. Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)65
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court, 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, the method adopted by the Tribunal for valuing the cost of the shares in the hands of the respective assessees for the purpose of arriving at the taxable capital gains is correct in law ?' 2. The assessee is an investor in shares. The assessee had acquired on various dates prior to 4th July, 1996, 87 original shares of M/s Southern Roadways Pvt. Ltd. On 4th July, 1966 bonus shares were issued by the company. The bonus shares rank pari passu with the old shares. As a result of this bonus issue, the assessee received 174 shares. There was further bonus shares when the assessee received 94 shares. The total shareholding of the assessee as on 31st December, 1972 was 355 shares. On 28th March, 1973 the assessee...
Ashok Leyland Employees Union and Another Vs. Union of India and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC660
ORDERD. Raju, J. 1. The above batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1996 (Presidential Ordinance No. 2 of 1996), hereinafter referred to as the impugned ordinance and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, hereinafter referred to as the impugned pension scheme. Subsequently, the Parliament has enacted the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment Act, 1996, Central Act, 25 of 1996 hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act and President's assent was also accorded to the same on August 16, 1996. Orders have been passed by this Court to suitably amend the references in the nature of relief sought so as to substitute the name of the Act in places where the name of the impugned Ordinance, without driving the various petitioners to the necessity of filing formally individual petitions seeking for such amendment and thereupon the challenge st...
S. Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR353(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this court, 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 facts and in the circumstances of the case, the method adopted by the Tribunal for valuing the cost of the shares in the hands of the respective assessees for the purpose of arriving at the taxable capital gains is correct in law ?' 2. The assessee is an investor in shares. The assessee acquired on various dates prior to July 4, 1966, 87 original shares of Southern Roadways Private Ltd. On July 4, 1966, bonus shares were issued by the company. The bonus shares rank pari passu with the old shares. As a result of this bonus issue, the assessee received 174 shares. There was a further bonus issue when the assessee received 94 shares. The total shareholding of the assessee as on December 31, 1972, was 355 shares. On March 28, 1973, t...
Chinna Kannu Ammal Vs. K.K. Periasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1996
Reported in: I(1998)DMC130
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The petitioner Chinna Kannu Ammal, aged about 55 years has filed this revision against the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri in Cri. R.C. No. 39 of 1995, dated 18.3.1996, allowing the revision by setting aside the order of maintenance dated 6.7.1995, passed in M.C. No. 33 of 1989, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Harur.2. The facts of the case are as follows :Thirty years prior to the presentation of the maintenance application by the petitioner/wife, the petitioner and the respondent got married. Out of their wedlock, two children, one boy and one girl were born. The respondent/husband is working as an officer in the Block Development Office. The petitioner wife being a housewife had also looked after the agricultural operations.3. One year prior to the filing of the maintenance application, the respondent/ husband on noticing the petitioner, who used to stealthily remove the food grain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »