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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seshasayee Bros. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: [1996]222ITR818(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 20,000 being the deposits made by an intending buyer, forfeited and appropriated by the assessee, did not constitute business income of the assessee and as such was not liable to be taxed 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 20,000 could not at all be considered as income to bring it within the term 'causal receipt' falling under section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment for 1974-75, was completed by the Income-tax Officer determining the total income at Rs. 44,450. The company had earlier entered into an agreement with one Sri K....
Senthilnathans Pharmaceuticals Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2304]; (1997)ILLJ71Mad
1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, call for the records of the proceedings of the respondent, quash his orders passed in No. B-11/TN/3257 C/Enf/Regl. of 1986, dated February 25, 1986, and direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's establishment as a new establishment entitled to the infancy protection under Section 16 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and demand contribution under the above said Act only after the employment strength has reached the statutory minimum. 2. In support of the said writ petition one Tr. Subbiah, one of the managing partners of the new partnership firm called as Senthilnathans Pharmaceuticals who is the petitioner running a pharmaceutical business has sworn to an affidavit. He has stated that the petitioner firm which had not been doing the pharmaceutical business hitherto being a new partnership came into existence in about December, 1982, and that the R. R. Pharmace...
Workmen of Tansi Structurals Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2315]; (1997)ILLJ626Mad
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated January 7, 1993, in W.P. No. 2123 of 1989 of a learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The writ petition was filed for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms. No. 1271 (Industries) dated December 9, 1988, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government, Industries Department, Madras 600 009, and to issue direction to give suitable posts and salary in the Government departments, and in public sector undertakings, commensurate with the posts and salary drawn by the petitioners while employed in Tansi Structurals, Ambattur, Madras. 3. The claim of the petitioners is based upon a direction of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3801 of 1986. This direction has been issued by the Supreme Court when the petitioners challenged the retrenchment from Tansi Structurals, Ambattur, a unit of Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries Corporation Limit...
Varada Reddiar and anr. Vs. Jayachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC611; (1996)IMLJ629
ORDERSubramani, J.1. This revision petition is by two strangers who are not parties to the suit, but who feel aggrieved by the ex parte judgment made in O.S. No. 619 of 1991 on 24.9.1991, by the learned District Munsif, Tirukoilur.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said suit against the third respondent herein. The third respondent is the Trustee of two Temples mentioned in the plaint. The suit property also belongs to the Temple. Respondents 1 and 2 claimed themselves as lessees under the Temple for the period 1.6.1991 to 30.6.1992. They said that plaint A and B Schedule items are in their possession on the basis of the lease, which was to expire on 30.6.1992. They filed the suit on the basis that the third respondent herein was about to terminate their lease and reaction the property even before the expiry of the period. They wanted to restrain the Temples from conducting any auction either on 24.7.1991 or on any other date, and that their possession should not be disturbed.3. I...
K.R.K. Natarajan Vs. P. Kumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC305
ORDER1. Revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.152 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. The respondent is the accused in that case. The learned trial Magistrate tried the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and found him guilty. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The accused filed an appeal bearing No. C.A. 44 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge. Periyar District at Erode. The appeal was allowed on the sole ground that the notice of demand contemplated to be issued prior to the launching of the complaint had not been proved to be served on the accused and on that sole ground the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused. The judgment of the appellate Court is challenged in this revision.2. I heard Mr. D. Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. S. Uthirasamy, learned counsel appearing for the responde...
M. Patchirajan Vs. Tamil Nadu Transport Department and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2576]; (1997)ILLJ332Mad
1. Notice of motion was ordered on August 3, 1995. Again private notice was ordered to the second respondent Kattabomman Transport Corporation, Tirunelveli, on August 24, 1995. It is now represented that the second respondent has been served through Court on August 11, 1995, itself. The first respondent has not filed any counter and the third respondent filed a counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the first respondent received written instructions and on the basis of the same, learned Government advocate advanced his arguments. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a mandamus directing the second respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of clerk or typist in the Kattabomman Transport Corporation. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have entered appearance and also filed counter-affidavit and received written instructions, I admit this writ petition and by consent of all parties, take up the main writ petition itself for final disposal.2. The petitioner states...
D. Chellayyan Nadar and anr. Vs. Sulochana Thankachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ570
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai dated 29.9.1982 in A.S. No. 48 of 1981, allowing the appeal and granting the relief of redemption of the 'B' schedule property in its entirety as prayed for as against the preliminary decree for redemption of 57.46 cents only granted by the trial court.2. The controversy among the parties to this proceedings is in a narrow compass. The plaintiff's mother executed a mortgage for plaint 'A' schedule property in favour of the defendant's wife. The mortgage was in possession till her death and after her death, her husband, the first defendant and her children defendants 2 to 5 continued to be in possession. There was a partition in the plaintiffs family and during the time of partition it was noticed that the total extent of the landed property as well as the survey number has been wrongly mentioned in the mortgage deed and necessary follow up action was taken. In...
K.S. Chidambaram Vs. Gomathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ59
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thenkasi, dated 30.11.1982 in A.S. No.26 of 1982, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram, dated 30.12.1981 in O.S. No.307 of 1986. The wife of late Arumugham by name Muppidathi Ammal, first plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 307 of 1976 and when she died during the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs 2 to 5, her legal representatives came to be impleaded to prosecute the proceedings instituted for declaration that the second schedule property shown as ABHG in the plaint plan belonged to the first plaintiff and other heirs of the deceased Arumugham and for recovery of possession of III Schedule ABFE ground site after removing the construction made by the defendant. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the I schedule property shown as AXYZFB, belonged to the defendant and the II schedule shown as ABCD belonged to the plaintiffs as heirs of lat...
N. Sukumaran Nair and anr. Vs. P. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ184
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 613 of 1978, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Srivaikuntam, are the appellants. The suit was one for damages of Rs. 5,000 with future interest and costs.2. Material averments in the plaint are as follows: 2nd plaintiff is the daughter of 1st plaintiff. First plaintiff is an Iyappa devotee and is also an Iyappa Guruswami for a group of devotees. Defendant is also an Iyappa devotee. First plaintiff used to conduct Iyappa Pooja and Bajans in his house. Defendant used to attend the Pooja and Bajans regularly in the house of plaintiffs, and in course of time, he became a family friend of plaintiffs. Defendant developed intimacy with the second plaintiff and wanted to marry her. They wanted to marry, and the defendant also wrote to the first plaintiff on 8.8.1978 requesting his consent for their marriage. Plaintiffs also agreed and a betrothal also took place, whereby the marriage was agreed to be performed on 4.9.1978. Invitation cards were...
Natesa Pathar (Died) and Others Vs. Pakkirisamy Pathar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad105; 1996(1)CTC337
1. The above Second Appeal has been filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 56 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif of Ariyalur, who died during the pendency of the above Second Appeal and whose Legal Representatives are pursuing the above proceedings in this Court against the Judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, dated 10-9-1992 in A.S. No. 130 of 1981 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur dated 28-1-1981 in O.S. No. 56 of 1978.2. The Suit O.S. No. 56 of 1978 was filed by the first respondent herein for redemption of the suit property from the mortgage by conditional sale deed dated 20-3-1959, for directing the first defendant to surrender possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, for ascertaining the mesne profits from the date of plaint till delivery of possession from the first defendant to the plaintiff and for costs in the following circumstances;-- The plaintiff claims that the suit property ...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »