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.
V.D. Swami and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR439(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1978-79 : '1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation on lift has to be allowed only at 10% instead of 15% 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under s. 35B is not allowable to the applicant on (a) attestation and legalisation of export invoices and legal expenditure incurred in connection with export, and (b) salaries, allowances, contribution to provident fund paid for the members of the staff attributable for services rendered in processing and shipping materials, preparation of export documents, negotiation of the same through banks and allied correspondence ?' 2. In the assessment relating to the asst. yr. 1978-79, the ITO had allowed depreciation on the lift in the assessee-company's office building at 10% applicable to the category coming...
C. David Thampi Dhas Vs. N.M. Christian College, Marthandam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ911Mad
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the inipugned order refusing to reemploy the petitioner and continue his service till May 3 1, 1996 but relieving him from duties on the afternoon of January 31, 1996 is in violation of G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education, dated February 13, 1981. 2. The short facts are, the petitioner completed his 58th year of age on January 10, 1996, i.e., after the commencement of the academic year 1995-96. According to him, he is eligible to continue in service till May 31, 1996 by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 281, Education, dated February 13, 1981. Under that Govt. Order, the age of retirement of teachers is fixed as 58 years and if any teacher has to retire in the middle of the academic year, he would be permitted to continue till the end of the academic year with, the permission of the Director of Collegiate Education. The petitioner gave a representation to the I st respondent to continue him in service till May 31, 19...
Spencer Group Aerated Water Factory Employees' Union and anr. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ362Mad
Kanakaraj, J. 1. The Spencer Consumer Products and Services Limited (hereinafter called 'the Company') is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, as and from November 28, 1979. It had a factory within the premises of the well-known Spencer and Company at No. 769, Anna Salai, Madras. The Company was engaged in the manufacture of Bakery Products and aerated waters. Due to shortage of water and non-availability of space in the Spencer Complex which was undertaking a huge expansion programme in the name of Spencer Plaza, a decision was taken to shift the aerated water factory to Rajakulam, Chengleputtu - M.G.R. District. There is a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act) dated September 18, 1989 and pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the company had put up a notice on May 29, 1991 asking the employees of the aerated water factory to report for work at Rajakulam with effect from June 1, 1991. Accordingly, the employees of the aerated wate...
Pownammal and 2 ors. Vs. Janakiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC526; (1996)IIMLJ509
Raju, J.1. The above Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 645 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Thirupathur, North Arcot District, against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate judge, Thirupathur, dated 11.9.1992 in A.S. No. 40 of 1991 confirming the Judgment and decree of the learned Trial Judge dated 31.3.1981 in O.S. No. 645 of 1979.2. The plaintiff claiming to be the wife of late Nataraja Moopan, filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit items 1 to 3 and 7 and to direct the defendants to deliver possession of items 4, 5 and 6 of the suit properties to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the properties comprised in suit items 4 to 6 belonged to one Kujjali Moopan, who had three sons and the eldest Thennaiya Moopan was the manager of the Joint Hindu family and from the income of the said joint family properties, the suit items 1 to 3 were purchased in h...
K.N. Chidambaram Vs. K.N. Lakshmanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC436; (1996)IMLJ557
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit claim contending that the defendant who is his brother, borrowed 10,000 dollars from him while they were at Malaysia and repaid 3100 dollars on three different dates and even though he has filed a suit in Malaysia in Civil Action No. 1816 of 1978 in the Sessions Court at Kuala-lumpur and obtained a decree on account of the default of appearance by the defendant, he has filed the suit at Devakottai on the original cause of action since the defendant had executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the amount borrowed, which could not be executed in India on account of the fact that the decree passed against the defendant was on account of the default of appearance by the defendant.3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit is not maintainable at Devakottai, the defendant is entitled to the benefits of Act 15 of 1976 and Act 17 of 1976 and the calculation ...
V. D. Swami and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)142CTR(Mad)279
K. A. THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1978-79 :'1. Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the depreciation on lift has to be allowed only at 10% instead of 15% ?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under s. 35B is not allowable to the applicant on (a) attestation and legalisation of export invoices and legal expenditure incurred in connection with export, and (b) salaries, allowances, contribution to provident fund paid for the members of the staff attributable for services rendered in processing and shipping materials, preparation of export documents, negotiation of the same through banks and allied correspondence ?'2. In the assessment relating to the asst. yr. 1978-79, the ITO had allowed depreciation on the lift in the assessee-companys office building at 10% applicable to the category coming und...
Murugesa Naicker (Died) and Others Vs. M. Sadayappa Naicker and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad4; (1996)IIMLJ149
1. First defendant is the appellant.2. The plaintiffs case is as follows:The plaintiffs father Munusami Naicker purchased the suit property by means of a sale deed dated 7-8-1957 for a sum of Rs. 300/-from one Amitha Bibi and others. The plaintiff and Defendants are the legal representatives of the said Munusami Naicker, being brothers and sister, Munusami Naicker was the Joint Family Manager when he was alive.The second defendant has stealthily applied for sub-division of an extent of 5 cents out of 2.77 acres and manipulated to get the same without the concurrence of the plaintiff. The joint family had sunk two wells from out of the joint family properties. The second defendant is trying to get separate service connection to the joint family well to irrigate his properties which are at a distance. The plaintiff therefore demanded for partition and separate possession by issuing notice. The second defendant has sent a reply with false allegations. The plaintiff has therefore filed a s...
Deepa Ghosh Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3810
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1989 on the file of IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, convicting the appellant/accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing her to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in default to undergo R.I. for two years. 2. Originally there were two accused in this case. The appellant is A.1, A.2 her husband. A.2 was charged along with the appellant/A1 besides the offences under Sec. 8 read with S. 21 of the Act, for the offence under Section 29 of the Act for having committed criminal conspiracy along with A.1. However, A2 Mohammed Ameen was acquitted by the trial Court on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to establish that A2 had involved in the offence referred to above. 3. The charge against A.1/appellant Deepa Ghosh is that on 7-9-1988 at about ...
Rajendran Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ171
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4-11-1989 in S.C. No. 25 of 1988 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, South Arcot District at Cuddalore, convicting the appellant under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo R.I. for three months, also convicting him under S. 324, I.P.C., and sentencing to R.I. for six months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Originally, the appellant was tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C., on the allegation that on 1-8-1987 at about 11.00 p.m. he gave a fatal blow with an iron rod on the head of the deceased vijayarani, a one year old baby, and also caused simple injury with the same iron rod on the left chest of one Vijaya (P.W. 1) the mother of the child Vijayarani. On behalf of the prosecution 9 witnesses were examined, 10 exhibits were filed and M.O. 1, the iron rod was marked. 3. The facts leading to th...
R. Kanniah Naidu Vs. K. Vijayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ387
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, dated 21.12.1982, in A.S. No. 11 of 1982, by the defendant in the trial court reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif at Kancheepuram, dated 20.3.1981 in O.S. No. 241 of 1979.2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for redemption of mortgage on payment of Rs. 2,016.66 and for recovery of possession. The plea of the plaintiff in the trial court was that one Kuppusamy Naidu executed a usufructuary mortgage deed for good and valuable consideration of Rs. 5,500 in favour of the defendant on 2.4.1960 in respect of the plaint schedule properties and put the defendant in possession of the same in lieu of interest, that the plaintiff is the only and sole legal heir of Kuppusamy Naidu entitled to redeem the suit properties, that he is a debtor within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1938 and Act 8 of 1973 and in view of the same the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »