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.
K.S.K.P. Subbayan Chettiar Vs. K. Ramu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ115
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second Appeal No. 1374 of 1982 arises from O.S. No. 16 of 1981, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Periakulam, and Second Appeal No. 1375 of 1982 arises from O.S. No. 17 of 1981, of the same court.2. The materiel averments which are necessary for the proper disposal of the second appeals are as follows:The property originally belonged to one Perumal Chettiar under a registered sale deed dated 6.9.1940. He purchased it from Gandhimathi Chettiar. Plaintiff in O. S. No. 17 of 1981, which is the subject-matter of Second Appeal No. 1375 of 1982, is the son of the abovenamed Perumal Chettiar. Plaintiff, in his first wife has a son by name Bhagavathi Kalyani Chettiar, and through the second wife he has no issues. After the death of Perumal Chettiar, the suit property was inherited along with other properties as joint family, of which the plaintiff was the manager. Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint property also as manager. It is said that h...
K. Saroja Vs. Valliammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ199
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The parties to these appeals will be referred to as parties in O.S. No. 1079 of 1979 from which S.A. No. 69 of 1983 arises.2. O.S. No. 1079 of 1979 was filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein, to specifically enforce Ex.A-2 agreement dated 26.7.1978 executed by the first defendant in the suit. The second defendant therein is the plaintiff in the connected suit O.S. No. 226 of 1981. That is a suit for redemption filed against the appellant/plaintiff in O.S. No. 1079 of 1979. The 3rd defendant is the husband of the second defendant and defendants 4 and 5 are persons claiming to have some right over superstructure as co-lessee of the site. Hence they are also impleaded.3. 5th defendant is also the husband of the plaintiff and he was examined as P.W.1 in this case.4. The material averments in the plaint are as follows: As stated in the plaint, the property belonged to the 1st defendant who executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff on 26.7.1978, agreeing...
Pappammal (Died) and ors. Vs. Valiammai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ194
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff who filed O.S. No. 256 of 1966, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Karur, died during the pendency of the suit, and plaintiffs 2 to 5 were impleaded as additional plaintiffs. Of them, after the filing of this second appeal, plaintiffs 2 and 3 died and appellants 5 to 7 herein have been impleaded.2. The suit was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession of C Schedule property, mentioned in the plaint. A plan is also appended.3. Relevant facts which are necessary for the proper disposal of this second appeal are as follows: Plaint A Schedule Property is having an area of nearly 3 acres. The said property along with other properties were purchased by the original plaintiff under Ex.A-1, dated 17.1.1946. The original plaintiff paid a consideration of Rs. 25,000. It is said that he obtained physical possession of the entire property. The plaint C Schedule property is a portion of A Schedule, which is situated on the north western portion...
Rajkumar N. JaIn Vs. Inspector of Police, P. 5, Police Station Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3440
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras in M.P. No. 2300 of 1995 in C.C. 5103 of 1994, dated 19-12-1995 for want of its legality and propriety. 2. The petitioner by name Raj Kumar N. Jain is a third party and a financier extending financial help to one of the accused by name Selvam for the car bearing Registration Mark T.S.R. 2191, who along with other accused is facing charges for the offences under Ss. 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 and 506(II), Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the vehicle above referred to though belongs to the said accused Selvam, he is a hirer and the owner is the petitioner under the hire-purchase agreement as evident from the endorsement relating to the hire-purchase agreement found in the registration certificate of the said vehicle and that the said vehicle was used by all the accused prior to and after the occurrence i.e. for committing the crime and for going away from the scene of t...
Agrocargo Transport Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)325; [1997]224ITR90(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, 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 expression 'industrial undertaking' and 'industrial unit' according to section 35D includes an undertaking set up for transportation of goods by trucks ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of transporting goods. In the previous year ended June 30, 1977, corresponding to the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee had increased the fleet of trucks by increasing its share capital. The assessee claimed that 1/10th of the total expenditure of Rs. 72,614 incurred on the above amounting to Rs. 7,261 should be allowed as a deduction under section 35D(1)(ii) of the Act. This was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer in the view that the deduction under section 35D was allowable only in connection with the extension of the industrial unde...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Nallakamu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR766(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1977-78, 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 Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the share income arising to the minor sons by virtue of their admission to the partnership firm cannot be included in the individual assessment of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1977-78 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's further finding that the provisions of section 64(1) cannot be invoked to include the minors' income, if the parent has no income of his own as 'individual' is sustainable in law and is based on a proper appreciation of the provisions of section 64 as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act with effect from April...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Silver Cloud Forest and Plantations
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR671(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the order passed by this court, dated April 20, 1982, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 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 that the amount received on the sale of bamboo is only a capital receipt and hence the same is not assessable to tax as revenue receipt ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm running a coffee and tea estate in which there were also shade trees, such as bamboos and silver oaks. Permits were issued for the removal of the bamboos. According to the said permits only dead and flowered bamboos alone can be removed. The assessee was also periodically cutting live bamboos and selling them, the income from which was subjected to tax in the earlier years. The contention of the assessee was that for the assessment...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ranganathar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: [1997]224ITR75(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 is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance prescribed under section 32A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79 ?' 2. The point for consideration is, whether the assessee, which is engaged in the business of executing civil contract works is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79. The Income-tax Officer granted the investment allowance under section 32A(2) but the Commissioner of Income-tax, exercising his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, withdrew the investment allowance granted by the Income-tax Officer. The matter came up by way of second appeal before the...
A. Rajendran and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ122Mad; (1996)IIMLJ126
ORDER1. The above matters are listed for being mentioned today, at the instance of the office. On December 22, 1995, I passed the following order in the above writ petitions. 'Heard Mr. G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P. Krishnamoorthy for the respondents. 2. In view of the Full Bench decision of our High Court reported in Government of Tamil Nadu etc. and two others, v. P. Hepzi Vimala Bai, 1994 W.L.R. 690, these writ petitions will have to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras. 3. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of.' The Special Officer (Grouping), High Court, Madras, transferred the above records to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Branch on January 8, 1996. On receipt of the records and the letter dated January 8, 1996, the Deputy Registrar (J) Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, sent a communication dated nil, January 1996 (signed on January 23, 1996). The communication reads thus : 'I...
Tehzeeb Katari Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1996
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC1
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The export of readymade garments from.India to various parts of the world is on the basis of the demand in the other countries, and on the basis of a peculiar quota system. Some of the foreign countries, importing rcadymadc garments from India imposed restrictions of the import of both textiles, and garments from other parts of the world including India. Some of these countries, called 'quota countries' entered into bilateral agreements with the Government of India from time to time fixing the quota of imports permitted from India. There are other countries called 'non-quota countries' which do not place any such restrictions, but apparently exports to these non-quota countries are not very attractive in terms of profits. The quota countries like U.S.A., Canada, Norway and the European Union permit India to export textiles and garments up to a maximum ceiling limit per annum. This ceiling limit is taken as the quota, which is in turn distributed among the individua...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »