Chennai Court February 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.
Union of India Vs. A.J. Kingsley Fernandez
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas122(Mad); 1996CriLJ4353
Abdul Hadi J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Union of India, represented by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is against the order of the Appellate Board, dated October 31, 1985, allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent herein before it and thereby setting aside the penalty of Rs. 7,500 levied by the first authority, in his order, dated July 31, 1984. The said order, dated July 31, 1984, was passed on the ground that the respondent had contravened section 9(1)(a) of the Act in having made payment of Rs. 35,000 on January 18, 1978, to one Justus Thomas. The abovesaid order, setting aside the order of the Appellate Board is on the footing that the said Justus Thomas has not been proved to be a person resident outside India, as mentioned in section 9(1)(a) of the Act. 2. The first authority has held that he was a person resident outside India. 3. Learned cou...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.T. Krishnamachari and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR224(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in Tax Case No. 96/80, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court 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 AAC had travelled beyond his jurisdiction and exceeded his powers in going into the question of price factor and making an addition of Rs. 14,55,500 in respect of purchase made from M/s. Tamil Nadu Printers & Traders (P) Ltd., Madras.' 2. The assessee is a registered firm with three partners, namely Shri T.T. Narasimhan, Shri T.T. Rangaswami and Shri T.T. Vasu. The ITO made two additions. The first addition was Rs. 25,72,142 representing alleged income of the assessee diverted to M/s. Tamil Nadu Printers & Traders (P) Ltd., a sister-concern of the assessee. According to the ITO, part of the business of distribution of gripewater was transferred by the assessee w.e.f. January, 197...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Adamkhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Mad)162; [1997]223ITR264(Mad)
Thanikkachalam J.1. As per the directions of this court in T.C.P. No. 28 of 1978, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the assessee had not concealed the particulars of his income or had not furnished inaccurate particulars thereof for the assessment year 1970-71 within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) ?' 2. The assessment year involved in this tax case is 1970-71. The assessee is an individual doing money-lending business. One Shri Abdul Gafoor Khan had executed a general power of attorney to the assessee. There was a search in the premises of the assessee on July 27, 1970. Various pro notes standing in the name of the assessee as well as Abdul Gafoor Khan were seized. On October 3, 1970, the assessee filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 10,000. The Inc...
Somasundaram Vs. Liyakat Ali and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC4
ORDER1. This second appeal is by the second defendant in O.S. No. 348 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Namakkal. First defendant is the Special Officer, Pandamangalam Primary Co-operative Bank Limited (Second respondent herein) and plaintiff is the first respondent herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment according to the array of parties in the suit. 3. Plaintiff filed the above suit for a declaration that the second defendant is junior to him and also for a declaration that the resolution passed by the first defendant on September 3, 1987 appointing the second defendant as Senior Clerk is illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction. 4. Material averments in the plaint are the plaintiff joined as Clerk on May 1, 1976. Initially the appointment was temporary. But his appointment was regularised from September 1, 1976. The second defendant was appointed 25 on November 9, 1976 in a regular vacancy. Before November 9, 1976,...
M.S. Saraswathi and 24 ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ1060Mad; (1996)IIMLJ84
ORDERAr. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. Vijay Narayan for the petitioners and Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran, Govt. Advocate for the respondents.2. The petitioners, 25 in number, who are now working as Selection Grade and Special Grade Typists in the High Court, have by this Writ Petition sought the relief of mandamus to the 1st respondent/State of Tamil Nadu to act on the recommendations of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court, as communicated in the letter of the 2nd respondent/Registrar, High Court, dated June 21, 1993 and to further grant the scale of pay of Rs. 1400- 2600 to the Selection Grade Typists in the High Court on par with the Selection Grade Typists in the Secretariat Service within a time limit to be specified by this Court.3. The Petitioners are all working as Selection Grade and Special Grade Typists in this Court. The Petitioners had submitted their representation dated December 18, 1987 to the 2nd respondent and upon the orders of the Hon'ble the officiating Chief Justice,...
Mohamed Asadullah and ors. Vs. Irfana Begum and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ65
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Plaintiffs are the petitioners in this civil revision petition against the dismissal of their LA. No. 87 of 1996 in O.S. No. 5699 of 1992 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said application has been filed under Order 19, Rule 2, C.P.C.2. The allegation in the supporting affidavit is that after the ex parte decree granted in the suit on 22.12.1993, the 2nd respondent- 2nd defendant filed LA. No. 14050 of 1994 for excusing the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and that in the supporting affidavit thereof, false averments have been made by the 2nd defendant and that in order to prove the falsity of the averments, the 2nd defendant should be permitted to be cross-examined by the plaintiffs and that hence the abovesaid LA. was filed under Order 19, Rule 2, C.P.C.3. The said supporting affidavit in LA. No. 14050 of 1994 is dated 9.8.1994 and counter was filed by the petitioners herein to the said application or a...
S. Subba Reddiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Bhagyalakshmi Ammal Alias Guruvac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ327
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants in O.S. No. 290 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirumangalam, are the appellants herein. After the filing of the second appeal, first appellant died, and appellants 3 to 8 have been impleaded as L.Rs. i.e., as additional appellants, as per order in C.M.P. No. 3155 of 1992 dated 20.7.1992.2. Relevant facts are as follows:Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, with mesne profits. The Scheduled property originally belonged to the first defendant and others. As per Ex.A-3 dated 23.10.1930, they sold the property to plaintiff s predecessors. The purchaser under Ex.A-3 was a minor. The purchaser died within a period of one year from the date of purchase, and thereafter his mother executed a release deed in favour of one Ramachandra Reddiar. There were also other claimants, who also executed release deeds in favour of Ramachandra Reddiar. Those documents are Exs.A-4 and A-5.3. It is the case of the pl...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.Ct.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)83; [1996]221ITR524(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the transfer of shares in a scheme of amalgamation in consideration of shares and debentures is a single indivisible transaction and saved from charging of capital gains under s. 45 by virtue of s. 47(vii) of the IT Act, 1961? (2) Whether, in the transaction, by which the assessee received 88,644 equity shares and 11,438 debentures of Travancore Rayons Ltd., the assessee is liable to any capital gains tax ?' 2. The assessee was one of the shareholders of the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., which under a scheme of amalgamation, was amalgamated with the Travancore Rayon Ltd. Every shareholder in the transferor-company in respect of every share of Rs. 100 held by him was entitled as of right to claim and recei...
State by Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC249
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The petitioner (C.B.I.) is seeking for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent herein on 2.1.1996 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, in Crl. M.P. No. 7732 of 1995.2. The brief facts are: On 21.7.1994 at 4.30 hrs. one Sri. K.N. Vijayan a practicing Advocate of Madras was attacked when he has about to leave his house to New Delhi to attend a case before the Apex Court on 22.7.1994. According to the prosecution, the respondent played a key role in organising this murderous attack on Advocate along with Sri. Madhavan, Leader of the M.G.R. Youth Wing in A.IA.D.M.K. Party. The respondent herein is the Secretary of the Madras (South) District of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party (A.I.A.D.M.K.). In order to please certain persons who are powerfully placed, he organised the attack using hirelings, booking a room in a lodge and paying money. When the complaint was registered at Kodambakkam Police Station while investigation was in pro...
S.P. Vedanayagam Vs. Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC379; (1996)IMLJ432
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final hearing.2. On 23.1.1996, I passed the following order after hearing the counsel for the petitioner:'It is contended by the petitioner that the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act 31 of 1978 has not been complied with at all and the respondents have straight away proceeded with the publication in the Gazette about the acquisition and issued notice under Section 5(1) of the Act. The Government Pleader is directed to produce the records before this Court on the adjourned hearing date, in order to verify whether the statement made by the petitioner is correct or false. Post the Writ Petition for orders on 13.2.1996.There will be an interim stay of dispossession till 13.2.1996. Notice.'3. Today, the learned Government Pleader placed the records before this Court and argued the case on the basis of the instructions received by him. Admittedly, the procedure ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »