Chennai Court February 1996 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.A. Jan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR828(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court 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 correct in law in holding that section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, could not be applied as no benefit accrued to the miners during their minority ?' 2. The assessment years involved in these tax cases are 1974-75 to 1976-77. The assessee by a trust deed called Ameerjan Trust executed on March 26, 1974, settled certain immovable properties on his seven children of whom six were miners at the time of execution of the trust deed. The assessee did not include these properties in his return of net wealth. Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act provides that in computing the net wealth of an individual, there shall be included, as belonging to that individual, the value of the assets which on the valuati...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusamy @ Krishnan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC693
ORDERArunachalam, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 110 of 1984, on the file of the Court of Session, Madurai North at Dindigul Appellant Muthusamy alias Krishnan was charged under Section 302 I.P.C. alleging that at or about 6,30 p.m. on 14th June, 1984 at Semmanampatti, he caused the death of deceased Ayyavu, by cutting him once, on his right neck with an aruval, M.O.1 on conclusion of an elaborate trial, appellant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Prosecution case, in brief, can be summarised as follows: Appellant Muthusamy alias Krishnan and deceased Ayyavu were cousins. Both of them were unmarried. However, deceased was maintaining intimacy with one Pommakkal, while the appellant was keeping, as his permanently kept concubine, one Muthammal, elder sister of P.W.5 Thimmayan. About a month prior to occurrence, appellant requested P.W.4, Raju Gounder, for a loan of Rs. 200 P.W. 4 stated that he had no money. Appellant replied that he will be able t...
Tag this Judgment!R. Thyagarajan Vs. Meenakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC127
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 5614 of 1987 has filed this civil revision petition against the order dated 16.10.1995 in I.A. No. 11190 of 95. The said LA. filed by the respondent/plaintiff sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit The said prayer has been granted by the impugned order on condition the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs. 200 on or before 25.10.1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has preferred this civil revision petition.2. The material allegation in the affidavit in support of the I.A. is as follows:-'Since the plaint needs lot of amendment by incorporating a new Schedule regarding the encroached portion of the defendant and also the amendment of the Schedule to the plaint by mentioning the backyard portion alone, the plaint has to be amended suitably. To Avoid more corrections and also amendment, I am advised to file a new suit for the same cause of action.'3. As already stated, the suit was filed as early as 1987 ...
Tag this Judgment!Jeswanthraj Mody Vs. Selvanayaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC653
ORDERSubramani, J.1. Second defendant in O.S.No. 8117 of 1981 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant.2. Reference to the parties in this appeal is according to their array in the suit.3. Plaintiff instituted the suit declaration and injunction, on the following facts:- Plaint schedule property originally belonged to the first defendant who executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, as per the original of Ex.A-7. It is averred that on the date when Ex.A-7 was executed, there were only two mortgages made known to the plaintiff and the first defendant has represented that there was no other encumbrance over any portion of the property. The plaintiff believed the representation of the first defendant and also that of the fourth defendant, who is her husband. It is said that by the month of February, 1979, the plaintiff came to know that prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of plaintiff, first defendant had fraudulently executed mortgages in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Syed Abdul Kadar and ors. Vs. Director of Enforcement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC106
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') now lie in a narrow compass in view of the ex post facto approval dated 8.8.1990, granted by the Reverse Bank of India, in relation to the contraventions charged with. No doubt, the appellants had been earlier concurrently found guilty and imposed with certain penalties on the footing that they have contravened Sections 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(e) of the Act. The Appellate Board's order is much earlier to 8.8.1990, that is, on 31.12.1987.2. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 677 of 1989 is a Company: which maintained 13 N.R.Is. accounts in its books of accounts and the appellant in each of the other two appeals is a Director of the said Company.3. Of the abovesaid 13 N.R.Is. one is Thaika Sithi Aliya, with reference to whose account alone, these appeals have arisen. On the footing that in the accounts maintained by the appellant-company in her na...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugham and anr. Vs. Govinda Nattar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ136
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 341 of 1977, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Chidambaram, are the appellants. The suit filed by them was one for declaration and possession.2. The suit property originally formed part of 2 1/2 acres out of which 65 cents purchased by the first plaintiff and another. Which originally belonged to on Batcha Bivi, and the sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff is Ex.A-1. After the purchase, there was partition between the purchasers as per Ex.A-2 the first plaintiff got four cents out of the same; two cents was purchased by second plaintiff from the first plaintiff as per Ex.A-4 It is said that the defendants are disturbing the possession and, therefore, the suit is filed.3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they deny the title of the plaintiffs. They also denied that the suit property originally belonged to Mohamed Ghouse Mian and also denied thee sale in favour of the first plaintiff. According to them, they are i...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Panruti Municipality Vs. Sri Kannika Parameswari Amm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ339
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant- Panruti Municipality is the appellant herein. The subject-matter of the suit O.S. No. 2846 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore, is a public market place.2. With an intention to prevent unauthorised occupation of shops and unauthorised hawking, the defendant- Municipality put up a platform having a height of 2 feet, to a length of 8 1/2 feet. The said platform caused obstruction for easy access to the plaintiff who is having shops on the roadside. Hence the present suit was filed for a mandatory injunction, directing the Municipality to demolish the platform constructed by it.3. The defence taken by the Municipality was that, being a public land, it has got absolute right to construct a platform. It also put forward a contention that the intention of putting up such platform was to avoid unauthorised hawking. It also said that the plaintiff has got free access to their shops. According to the defendant, it was justified in const...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Servai Vs. P. Periyakaruppan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad411; (1996)IMLJ600
ORDER1. Heard. Seeking the review of the judgment delivered by me on 4-8-1994 in S.A. 839 of 1994, under O.47, R.1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present petition is filed. I have rendered the following judgment on 4-8-1994 when the Second Appeal came for admission :--'Heard the contentions raised by Mr. E, M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, the learned counselappearing for the appellant. While seeking the admission of the second appeal, the learned counsel contended that while reversing the judgment of the trial Court, the appellate Court has failed to consider the document of title, Ex. A. 1, the U.D.R. patta granted in the name of the plaintiff and that the said aspect, in the context of the prior mortgage deed created and executed by defendant, has clearly established the title of the appellant/ plaintiff to the suit property. In this context, I have perused the judgment of both Courts below and the findings given by the lower appellate Court with reference to Ex. A-1 i...
Tag this Judgment!Shunmugasundaram Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ499
Arunachalam, J. 1. This case of murder arising out of unmet dowry demand and consequent cruelty, portrays meticulous planning and neat execution of crime, inside the residential premises occupied by the spouses (deceased Gandhimathi and appellant Shanmughasundaram). We have evidence of burning of the deceased as well as medical evidence highlighting death of the deceased, arising out of asphyxia, as a result of manual strangulation. 2. Four charges were framed against the appellant in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1988, on the file of Court of Session, Periyar Division at Erode. The first charge indicated the appellant under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that ever since his marriage with the deceased that had taken place on 27th January, 1980, he not being satisfied with the quantum of dowry brought by her at the time of her marriage, was subjecting her to torture in order to extract more dowry from her. The second charge was framed for an offence punishable under Section 498-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S. Chidambarathanu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)220; [1997]223ITR557(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance to the order of this Court dt. 27th October, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following question of law 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 correct in law in directing the ITO to grant continuation of registration, even though form No. 12 was not really signed by all the partners ?' 2. The assessee-firm was constituted originally under a deed of partnership dt. 1st January, 1964 and was reconstituted as per the deed. dt. 16th August, 1973. The assessee-firm consisted of three partner viz., 1) Shri Chidambarathanu 2) Smt. J. Parvathy and 3) Shri G. Sivarajan. Partners No. 2 and 3 are the daughter and son of the first partner. This firm was granted registration in prior years. For the asst. yr. 1977-78 corresponding to the previous year ended 15th August, 1976 an application for continuation of registration was filed on 30th June, 1977 in form N...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »