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.
M. Murugesa Naicker (Died) and ors. Vs. M. Sadayappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ149
Govardhan, J.1. First defendant is the appellant.2. The plaintiff's case is as follows:The plaintiff's 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 Ors. 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 2.11 acres and manipulated to get the same without the concurrence of the plaintiff. The 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 fil...
S. Mahalakshmi Vs. M. Syamala and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ5
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The 12th defendant in O.S. No. 133 of 1996 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy, has filed this revision challenging the order of the lower court in I.A. No. 202 of 1996, 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 Registraiion Nos. T.U.C. 9991, T.D.G. 555 and T.A.Y. 977 and for other consequential 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 1.12.1992. 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 moth...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Stanes Tyre and Rubber Products Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)1
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 to 1979-80, for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, r/w s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that while computing the chargeable profits for purposes of surtax assessment the deductions contemplated in sub-cls. (viii) and (ix) of cl. 1 of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, should be allowed at their gross amounts ?'2. The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested and the assessment years involved are 1975-76 to 1979-80 for which the respective financial years are the accounting years. The point for consideration relates to adjustment of dividends and royalty for the purpose of computing the chargeable profits in terms of rr. 1(viii) and 1(ix) of the First S...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. English Electric Company of India Limit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR970(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, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for excise duty is accrued liability of the year 1977-78 and that it should be allowed as a deduction even though the provision included the duty payable in respect of goods manufactured in the earlier years ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of electrical equipment. It was manufacturing ceramic fuse bodies, which are in turn used in the manufacture of HRC fuse links. The assessee had been manufacturing this item from 1968 onwards. At that time, the Central excise authorities tested some samples of the fuse bodies, but did not pursue the matter further and determined that those goods were not liable to excise duty. In N...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. English Electric Co. of India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)242
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for excise duty is accrued liability of the year 1977-78 and that it should be allowed as a deduction even though the provision included the duty payable in respect of goods manufactured in the earlier years?'2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture of electrical equipments. It was manufacturing ceramic fuse bodies, which are in turn used in the manufacture of HRC fuse links. The assessee had been manufacturing this item from 1968 onwards. At that time the central excise authorities tested some samples of the fuse bodies, but did not pursue the matter further and determined that those goods were not liable to excise duty. In November, 1973 the central excise ...
Odappayee Ammal and Others Vs. Ramanathan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad74
1. Plaintiffs are the appellants in the above second appeal. They filed a suit for redemption. The case of the plaintiffs as found in the plaint are as follows:--The suit property measuring about 1 acre 29 cents comprising in R. S. No. 400 of Naganakulam village and several other properties belonged to Pethan Kudumban. The said Pethan Kudumban executed a registered mortgage deed on 5-10-1964 with possession in favour of the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 4,500/-. Possession was handed over to the first defendant in pursuance of the said mortgage and the first defendant is in possession of the property as mortgagee. The period of redemption was fixed at 10 years. The mortgagor Pethan Kudumban died in the year 1965 without redeeming the mortgage with possession. The first plaintiff is the widow of Pethan Kudumban. The second plaintiff is the daughter and the third plaintiff is the only son through the second daughter Bommi. By virtue of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiffs have b...
D. Shanmugham Vs. Pottiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ2984
ORDER1. This is a revision filed by the petitioner Shanmugham, eldest son of the respondent Pottiammal, against the order of maintenance dated 12-2-1993, in M.S. No. 2 of 1992, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kancheepuram, on the application filed by respondent/mother, claiming maintenance under S. 125, Cr.P.C. 2. On 5-1-1992, the petition under S. 125, Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent/mother in M.C. No. 2 of 1992 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Kancheepuram. The petitioner being the eldest son of the respondent herein has filed his counter on 18-3-1992. Thereafter, mother/Pottiammal was examined before the trial Court on 4-6-1992 and 10-7-1992. The son/Shanmugham was examined on 28-1-1993. After the evidence of both mother and son was over and after hearing both the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 12-2-1993, allowed the claim case of the respondent herein, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance to ...
Ponnumony Vs. Sreekumaran and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ3791; 1996(2)CTC118
ORDER1. A melancholic episode of the death of young man suspected to be at the hands of police personnel with whom the investigation was entrusted by this Court and who referred the said case as 'mistake of fact' which gave rise to the filing of the private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, for the offence of murder, which was also thrown out at the threshold, has been laid before me for redressal in this revision. 2. The petitioner Ponnumony is the complainant. On 14-7-1992, his son Sivalingam died under a suspicious circumstance. When he came to know that the death of his son was at the brutal hands of the local policemen, he presented a petition to the District Superintendent of Police Nagercoil. On the direction of the Superintendent of Police, the case was registered in Cr. No. 727 of 1992 under Section 174, Cr.P.C. on the file of Thuckalay Police Station, by the Sub-Inspector one of the accused in this case. As expected, there was no proper invest...
A.G.S. Tiber and Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR207(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 'Whether, on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the relief under s. 80J of the Act ?' 2. There was an industrial undertaking owned by a partnership firm by name Arasan Splints & Veneers Factory, Sivakasi. The said partnership firm was allowed deduction under s. 80J of the Act for the three preceding years. The assessment year with which we are concerned in this tax case is 1980-81. In the relevant previous year the assessee-company under an agreement, dt. 2nd April, 1979, took on lease the land and buildings and the entire plant and machinery of the said industrial undertaking previously run by Arasan Splints & Veneers Factory and carried on manufacturing of splints and veneers. The assessee claimed continuation of relief...
Palani Gounder (Decd.) and Others Vs. Income-tax Revenue Department an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR59(Mad)
Sathasivam, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in the above second appeal. They filed the suit for a declaration to declare that the purchase of the suit properties by the first plaintiff on September 28, 1966, for a valid consideration of Rs. 23,000 from one Krishnasami Maniagarar under a duly registered sale deed is not void and for an injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding against the property and for declaring that the order of the third defendant dated June 1, 1974, is void and illegal. 2. The plaint averments are as follows : According to the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid by the first plaintiff to the vendor on the date of the execution of the document. The balance amount of Rs. 18,000 was paid before the Sub-Registrar on October 18, 1966, i.e., the date of registration of the document. The purchase was made only after the purchaser was satisfied that there was no encumbrance over the property. According to the plaintiffs, the vendor had ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »