Chennai Court March 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.
Maya Devi and ors. Vs. Dhanlakshmi, Proprietor of Namakkal South India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: 2(1996)ACC575
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Claimants are the appellants in the above appeal. The wife and children of the deceased Kushiram, who died in an accident that took place on 22.9.1982, have filed M.C.O.P.No. 363 of 83 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem, claiming a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Inasmuch as neither the owner nor the insurer of the lorry or the Transport Corporation, namely, Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore, filed any appeal in respect of the negligence aspect against the award passed in M.C.O.P. No. 363 of 83, we are not referring any of the factual aspects leading to the accident.2. As stated above, the wife and children of the deceased Kushiram filed claim for Rs. 6,00,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem. According to them, the deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of the accident and he was doing textile business earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. In order to prove income and compensation, the third claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 36...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R. Rangaswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: (1997)140CTR(Mad)38; [1997]224ITR113(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sale of the property by a partner to a firm in which he is a partner would not amount to a 'transfer' for purpose of capital gains under section 45 of the income-tax Act, 1961, and accordingly no capital gains could be brought to tax on the sale of lands and building by the assessee to the partnership concern ?' 2. The assessee is an individual. On May 1, 1969, he converted his proprietary business into a partnership consisting of himself and his three sons. On April 30, 1975, he transferred his immovable property consisting of land and building to the firm. He returned the capital gains of Rs. 26,098 as arising from the transfer. Later, by his letter dated November 12, 1976, he claimed that no...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Venkatesh (Minor)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: [1999]237ITR122(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 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the trust income should not be included in the income-tax assessment of the assessee minor for the assessment year 1978-79 ?' 2. The dispute before the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Department was the inclusion of the trust income of Venkatesh Trust of Rs. 2,915 in the total income of the assessee, minor Venkatesh, represented by father and guardian, Shri C. R. Rajendran. In upholding the assessee's case and deleting the inclusion of the amount, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner followed the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1977-78 in ITA No. 602 (MDS) of 1979, B-Bench, dated November 27, 1979. In the appeal preferred by the Department, t...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Good Year India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1996
Reported in: 1996(54)ECC125
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These writ appeals have been taken up together at the request of all the counsel, as common questions arise for consideration. The short facts necessary for the purpose of this judgment are that the appellants imported natural rubber, known as smoked rubber sheets either directly or through the Slate Trading Corporation. The Customs Department insisted that the importers are liable to pay additional duly, as per Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In several cases, the State Trading Corporation had paid the duty and collected from the importers and in such cases, the importers have sought for refund. In cases, where the importers had not already paid the duty, they have sought for either a declaration that the levy of duly is illegal or for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the authorities from collecting such duty. The following appeals arise out of the writ petitions, in which the prayer is for refund of the duty paid:W.A. Nos. 2161 and 2162 of 1987, 315 ...
Gilles Pfeiffer Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad322
ORDER1. The prayer made in this writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order No. 1348/RRO/94-3441 dated 1-11-1995 issued by the third respondent.2. The petitioner states that he is a French citizen holding a French Passport bearing No. 395/89 issued at Pondicherry (French Consulate) on 12-5-89, renewed on 30-3-94 to be valid till 30-3-1999. He came to India in 1974 to involve himself in the Auroville project, the dream of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother who wanted to build an international community at Auroville based on the charter given by the Mother. Auroville aspires to be international township where men and women of ail countries should be able to live in peace and harmony above all creeds, all politics and nationalities. The purpose of Auroville is to realise human unity. It was inaugurated on 28-2-1968 in the presence and participation of 5,000 representatives from all over the world.3. As on today almost 1000 people of at least 20 nationalities including Indi...
Kattaiyan Rajangam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ382
ORDER1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner Kattaiyan O. Rajangam, against the judgment in S.C. No. 64 of 83 on the file of the Dist. Sessions Judge, West Thanjavur convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and R.I. for 7 years respectively which was confirmed by the appellate Court in C.A. No. 71/89 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tanjore. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The prosecution case is as follows :- On 17-8-1987, at 12.30 p.m., at Thepperumanallur, this revision petitioner way laid P.W. 3 Krishnamoorthy and raped her at the backyard of the house of P.W. 3 P.W. 1 Visalakshi was residing alongwith her parents at Thepperumanallur. She was also a student taking training in Sri Devi Technical Institute in Tirunageswaram. She used to go to Tirunageswaram, attend classes and come back home. On 17-8-87, while she was r...
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' U ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ756Mad; (1996)IIMLJ164
ORDER1. These three writ petitions arise from a common question between the same parties.2. Ale main relief sought for is to quash the Award of the second respondent dated May 27, 1994 whereby it declared that the workmen of the Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen be treated as employees of the Bank and they be paid on par with Class IV staff.3. The material facts which necessitated the filing of these writ petitions are as follows : The Central Office of the Indian Overseas Bank at Madras has got canteen for its employees. As per Ex. M-1, on November 25, 1972, the - Indian Overseas Bank, petitioner herein, acceded to the request of All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union to float a society in the name of 'I.O.B. Staff Co-Operative Canteen'. As regards the terms and conditions, the Bank agreed to supply free of cost, premises, furniture, utensils, electricity (other than fuel), upto a maximum of Rs. 500 per mensem to meet the cost of fuel against production of relative bills, and water...
M. Balusamy Vs. the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1129Mad; (1996)IIMLJ310
ORDERA.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner who is an employee of the respondent bank was working as cashier in State Bank of India, Ramanathapuram branch. He was transferred to the bank's Usillampatti branch as cashier by the impugned order dated August 5, 1995. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of certio-rari calling for the records relating to the letter in No. 183 dated August5, 1995 issued by the 2 respondent advising him that he has been transferred to the bank's Usillampatti branch. The letter dated August 5, 1995 reads as follows:'Dear Sir,STAFF: AWARDINTER REGIONAL TRANSFERIt has been decided to transfer you to our USILAMPATTI Branch as cashier provided you have no relative working at that Branch.2. You are eligible for travelling and other expenses in respect of your above transfer.3. You will be relieved from duty as at the close of business to-day the Augusts, 1995 with instructions to report at the other Branch after availing...
P.T. Eswaran Vs. the Zonal Manager Food Corporation of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC687; (1996)IIMLJ138
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. By consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner filed the above writ petition for certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the proceedings of the Second respondent in his suspension order No. V and S. 4(4)/88, dated 12.5.1988 and to quash the said impugned order of the second respondent and consequently direct the respondent to pay the backwages and other service benefits to the petitioner within the time to be stipulated. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-III (A.G.III) under daily wages in the category of physically handicapped on 6.10.1975. He was confirmed on 8.1.1976 as A.G.III. While he was working in the Food Corporation of India at the office of the Joint Manager (Port operations), certain investigations were made by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, Madras and statements were obtained from the petitioner and three other persons, alleged to have been involved ...
State by Food Inspector, Shencottah Municipality Vs. Sangu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC672
ORDERKarpagavinayagam, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the State against the acquittal judgment in C.C.No. 36 of 1986, on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sengottah, acquiting the respondent in respect of the offence under Section 7(i) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(ia) (a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. On the side of the prosecution two witnesses were examined and 10 exhibits were marked. The facts of the case are as under:3. P.W.I, the Food Inspector at Shencottai went to the grocery shop at No. 106, Pump House Road, belonging to the respondent, on 30.12.1985 at 12.45 P.M. The gingelly oil was kept in an aluminium vessel for sale. P.W.I introduced himself to the respondent and expressed his intention to take sample of the gingelly oil. Then he served Form No. VI, EX. P.1 on the accused. The he paid a sum of Rs. 14.40 for the sale of 750 grams of gingelly oil and obtained Ex.P.2 sale receipt and he took sample of gingellyoil, in 3 bottles, aft...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »