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.
A. Duraisamy Vs. Muthuraja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC125
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition, seeking permission to prefer an appeal against the decree and judgment dated 29.4.1994 in O.S. No. 496 of 1984 on the file of Sub-Court, Madurai, as an indigent person.2. The petitioner's case is that the respondents 1 to 4 herein filed the said suit O.S. No. 496 of 1984 for declaration of their title to the suit property and for consequential injunction against the fifth respondent and the petitioner herein got himself impleaded in the said suit. The petitioner's case is that the suit property is a poramboke land belonging to Iyanar temple. Since the suit had been decreed, now he wants to file an appeal. The Court fee comes to Rs. 3,926 and sine he is a man of no means, he wants to prefer an appeal as an indigent person.3. The second respondent herein filed counter on behalf of all the respondents. In the counter the respondents 1 to 4 contended that the petitioner's case is that the suit property is a poramboke land and...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR829(Mad)
1. In pursuance of the direction given by the Supreme Court 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 justified in holding that Rs. 47,585 being expenditure incurred by the assessee in the supply of coffee, tea, etc., to its clients should be allowed as a deduction in the computation of total income of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee is a bank carrying on the business of banking. For the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer noticed that it had claimed Rs. 47,584 as expenditure incurred for the supply of tea, coffee, etc., to its clients. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the same as being in the nature of entertainment expenditure applying the provisions of section 37(2B) of the Act. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who deleted the addition of Rs. 47,584 and allowed the ap...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.A. Pappuraja Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR768(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the order of this court, 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 is correct in law in holding that the assessee-firm was entitled to the benefits of registration ?' 2. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of nine partners including a minor. Clause 4 of the partnership deed dated December 9, 1973, stipulated that each partner should contribute at least Rs. 15,000 on which no interest will be paid, and the surplus, if any, will be credited to the current account on which interest is payable. The Income-tax Officer found that even though more than one year had expired from the date of constitution of partnership, two partners had not brought in the necessary capital. Hence, he refused to grant registration. 3. The assessee submitted that the provisions in the partnersh...
K. Nagaraja Odayar Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (Administration ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ635
Govardhan, J.1. Second plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff's case is as follows.Dharmaraja temple known as Drowpathi Amman temple in Swamimalai was constructed and consecrated by the ancestors of the first plaintiff s husband Narayanaswamy Odayar, from about twenty years ago, he was managing the affairs of the temple till his death in March, 1960. Prior to him, his father Duraisamy Odayar and prior to Duraisamy Odayar, his father Krishnasamy Odayar was managing the affairs of the temple. On the death of Narayanaswamy Odayar, the first plaintiff was recognised as hereditary Trustee as per order in O.A. No. 24 of 1976 dated 8.1. J977 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Narayanaswamy Odayar had left a will appointing the second plaintiff as the Trustee. The H.R. & C.E. Board has accepted that the income from the property owned by the temple is only Rs. 210 per annum. But the Deputy Commissioner passed an order stating the certain properties have not been shown as temple p...
Maruthiah Nattar Vs. M.K. Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ189
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the cultivating tenant under the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2095 of 1988. As he has committed default in paying the rent for the faslis 1392 to 1396, the respondent filed eviction petition in P.No. 53 of 1987 before the Revenue Court, Thanjavur. The Revenue Court ordered eviction on 7.7.1988. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the petitioner preferred C.R.P. No. 2093 of 1988 and obtained an order of injunction. During the pendency of the revision, as per the conditional order, the petitioner paid the arrears of rent in two instalments i.e., Rs. 5,000 on 30.8.1988 and the balance of Rs. 4,372.50 on 1.2.1989. Subsequently for on 27.9.1993 when the revision petition was listed for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner did not appear and hence the same was dismissed for non prosecution, on 27.9.1993.2. After the disposal of C.R.P. No. 2093 of 1988 the respondent filed E.P. No. 121 of 1994 seeking to enforce the order of eviction passed by the Rev...
R. Krishnasamy Naidu Vs. Smt. Ambrose and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ566
Govardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The averments in the amended plaint are briefly as follows: The first defendant is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same on 8.8.1995. One A.X. Devadoss, Power of Attorney of the first defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 4.4.1980 for the sale of the suit house for a price of Rs. 30,000. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid on the same date. The agreement provided, inter alia, that the registration should be completed before 31.5.1980 by paying Rs. 5,000 to the Power of Attorney and the balance is to be paid directly to the first defendant or her husband or children or to someone who is specially empowered by the first defendant to receive the same. The plaintiff was also put in possession of the property. The Power of Attorney who agreed to produce the title deeds and the encumbrance certificate sought for extension of time for completion of the sale deed, even though the plaintiff was ready to pay Rs. 5,000 an...
S. Mahalakshmi Vs. M. Syamala and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad34; (1996)IIMLJ5
ORDER1. The 12th defendant in O. S. 133 pf 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy has filed this revision challenging the order of the lower Court in I. A. 202/96 whereby an ex parte interim Receiver was appointed.2. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed the suit for dissolution of the partnership known as 'Srinivasa Transport (Firm)', for rendition of accounts by the third defendant in the said suit, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 12 and 13 from alienating the buses bearing Registration Nos. TUC 9991, TDG 555 and TAY 977 and for other con-sequ ential reliefs. The plaintiffs have filed the suit contending that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11 are partners of the partnership firm and the partnership was entered on 1-12-92. aS per the terms of the partnership deed, the third defendant is the Managing Director of the partnership firm. The third defendant in collusion with the first and second defendants, who are his father and mother, had alienated the permits and th...
indo Swiss Synthetic Gem Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and Etc. Vs. Governme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad41
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. These writ appealsand the writ petitions relate to a commonquestion as to whether the appellants and thewrit petitioners are entitled to claim certainconcessional electricity tariff rate applicableto certain power intensive factories and unitsand for that purpose they seek to quashcertain Government orders denying suchconcessions issued under the Tamil NaduRevision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1979 (Act I of 1979)(hereinafter referred to as Act 1 of 1979). Toappreciate the grounds on which the relief issought for, it is essential that we should knowthe facts of the case.2. The appellants in W.A Nos. 2 to 10 of 1988 were the writ petitioners in W. P. Nos. 2211 of 1987,1146 of 1982,4948 of 1985, 5426 of 1982, 5427 of 1982, 5428 of 1982, 1147 of 1982, 4949 of 1985 and 7186 of 1985 respectively. They are engaged in the production of rough synthetic gems which are subsequently cut and polished by skilled manual labour into synthetic gems of variou...
D.N. Elango Vs. Sudarsan Chits (India) Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas146(Mad)
1. The second judgment debtor in C.C. No. 3849 of 1986 is the revision petitioner before this court. 2. The decree-holder is a company known as Sudarsan Chits (India) Limited, now under liquidation as per proceedings of the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam. 3. When the execution petition was filed before the District Munsif's Court, Dharmapuri, the revision petitioner filed objections stating that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition. He also contended that the executing court also must be a company court and since the Munsif's court is not a company court, the execution petition filed before it is not maintainable. He also said that there is no transfer of a decree for being executed, and for that reason also, the execution petition cannot be sustained. 4. By the impugned order, the court below rejected all the objections and directed the execution to be proceeded with. It is against the said order, the present revision is filed. 5. Learned counsel relie...
Karuppa Pillai Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3880
1. The appellant herein stands convicted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge. Tiruchirapalli to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304 Part II in Sessions Cases No. 175 of 1987 for having caused the death of one Govindam Pillai. The prosecution has examined 14 withesses and the case of the prosecution as revealed from these witnesses in brief is as follows :- The deceased Govindam Pillai is the junior paternal uncle of P.W. 1. The accused/appellant also is related to P.W. 1 as the agnate of the husband of P.W. 1. P.W. 1's husband Rajalingam, the appellant are all agricultural collies and they go in the morning to attend cooly works and returns in the evening. The deceased Govindam Pillai. P.W. 1 and the appellant are all living in the same area in Thimmampatty village within the limits of Kulithalai police station. On 7-5-1987 at about 6.00 p.m. when P.W. 1 was alone in her house, the appellant came to her house and expressed his love to her...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »