Chennai Court April 1996 Judgments
Blue Star Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC538
Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The common applicant in Original Application No. 1331 and Application No. 4042 of 1995 is a party to an arbitration proceeding in which the respondent company is the opposite party. The applicant has claimed a sum of Rs. 4.9 crores. There is also a counter-claim of about Rs. 2.35 crores. It is stated at the Bar that the arbitration is in progress. 2. Pending the arbitration, these applications have been filed invoking section 41B and Schedule II to the Arbitration Act, 1940. Interim orders were made directing the respondent company not to utilise funds up to Rs. 5 crores so that that sum may be available to the applicant herein, in the event of its success in the arbitration. 3. The orders so made were prior to January 23, 1996. On that date, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in Case No. 503 of 1995 made an order pursuant to a reference made under section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act by the respondent company. The Board appointed ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.R. Chenni Krishna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR234(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 the Appellate Tribunal is correct and justified in law in holding that the expression 'an assessment to be made under sections 143(3)' used in section 144B, is confined only to the assessment to be made under section 143 and does not cover reassessments to be made under section 147 of the Income-tax Act with the consequence that the procedure prescribed under section 144B and extended time-limit provided in the Explanation to section 153 is not available to reassessments to be made under section 147 ?' 2. The point for consideration is whether the expression 'an assessment to be made under section 143(3)' used in section 144B is confined only to the assessment to be made under section 143 and does not cover reassessments to be made under section 147 of the Income-tax Act with the consequence t...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of South India Viscose Limited, (Now Known as Siv Indus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ318
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. 1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 23.2.1996 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15621 of 1995, declining to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, having regard to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court is N. Gurumurthy v. Second Additional Labour Court (1995) I L.L.J. 1022. Therefore, the petitioner in the writ petition has come up with this appeal.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the decision in N. Gurumurthy's case, (1995) I L.L.J. 1022 related to a case wherein the dispute was raised on a reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, whereas in the instant case, there is no such reference and only a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is filed. Therefore, it is contended that the reasons relevant to the proceedings on a reference made under Section 10 of the Act will not be relevant while deciding...
Tag this Judgment!M. Elangovan Vs. Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal, Di ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1996Mad401
ORDER1. The Writ Petition No. 1452 of 1996 was filed by one Elangovan (Appellant in W.A. No. 261 of 1996) against the Kodai-kanal Municipality (Appellant in W.A. No. 321 of 1996) seeking to quash a notification in Re.No. 176/96-A4 dated 19-1-1996 issued by the said Municipality proposing to conduct an auction for the right to choose the licensee to exhibit film shows in K.R.A. Kalai-arangam (Theatre) at Kodaikanal Road for the period from 5-3-1996 to 4-3-1999 and for a consequential direction to the Municipality to renew the period of lease in favour of the said petitioner for a further period of three years at an enhanced rent of being 15 per cent over the existing rate of rent. Onu C. Mahalingam, appellant in W.A. No. 304 of 1996, got himself impleaded in the said writ petition as the successful bidder in the auction held pursuant to the impugned notification. The writ petition was disposed of on 5-3-1996 by learned single Judge rejecting the claim for renewal, but directing a fresh ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Bakhear Ahamed and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: [1996]221ITR574(Mad)
Abdul Hadi J.1. In this tax case preferred by the Revenue under section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the questions of law referred to us are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was not right in adding a sum of Rs. 42,490 under section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, having regard to the provision of section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the 'account payee demand drafts' can be equated to 'account payee cheques' is sustainable in law ?' 2. The issue shortly is, when the assessee repays money borrowed on a hundi by an account payee crossed draft whether the amount so paid could be deemed to be the income of the assessee for the previous year in which the amount was repaid. 3. Section 69D of the Act runs as follows : 'Where any amount is borrowed on hundi from, or any amount due thereon is repaid to, any person otherwise than through ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Periasamy Nadar and 5 ors. Vs. T.D. Ramasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC287; (1997)IMLJ345
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. 1. These 4 L.P.As are preferred against the common judgment dt. 19.4.1991 passed in A.S.No. 427 to 430 of 1981 respectively. Those 4 appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos. 3811 to 3814 of 1978. All these suits were filed for specific performance of the agreements dt. 10.8.1977. O.S.No. 3811 of 1978 was filed by T. Periasamy Nadar. T. Murugesan and T. Thangaraj. whereas O.S.No. 3812 of 1978 was filed by T. Murugesan, O.S.No. 3813 of 1978 was filed by T. Thangaraj and O.S.No. 3814 of 1978 was filed by Periasamy. All the three are brothers and they have purchased different bits comprised in the property bearing door number 15/8, situate at Sir Thiagaraya Road. Pondy Bazaar, Madras. All these suits were filed on 17.4.1978. The trial court dismissed the suits. So also the learned single judge. Hence, these L.P.As. Thus, the two courts below have refused to grant a decree for specific performance.2. In the light of the contentions urge...
Tag this Judgment!Prabhakar (Minor) Represented by His Father and Next Friend Muthu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ337
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The appellants filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession and also for damages of Rs. 1 lakh. Their case is that the suit properties were purchased by one Sandanambal, the great grandmother of the appellants in the year 1948. She executed a will on 6.8.1964 in favour of her daughter Radha Ammal in respect of 'A' Schedule properties and in respect of 'B' Schedule properties Radha Ammal was having a life estate under the Will without any power of alienation, But, however, the said Radha Ammal had sold away both 'A' and 'B' schedule properties as early as 22.4.1967 to one Periyathambi Pillai. The defendant had purchased the properties from the Periyathambi Pillai on 24.5.1973. Now the suit has been filed on the ground that in respect of 'B' Schedule property the said Radha Ammal has no power of alienation and hence the sale deed executed by her is not binding on the appellants.2. The appellants filed O.P. No. 34 ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Periasamy Nadar and ors. Vs. T.D. Ramasubramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ345
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. These 4 L.P. Appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 19.4.1991 passed in A.S. Nos.427 to 430 of 1981 respectively. Those 4 appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. Nos.3811 to 3814 of 1978. All these suits were filed for specific performance of the agreements dated 10.8.1977. O.S. No. 3811 of 1978 was filed by T.Periasamy Nadar, T.Murugesan and T.Thangaraj, whereas O.S. No. 3812 of 1978 was filed by T.Murugesan, O.S. No. 3813 of 1978 was filed by T.Thangaraj and O.S. No. 3814 of 1978 was filed by Periasamy. All the three are brothers and they have purchased different bits comprised in the property bearing door Number 15/8, situate at Sir Thiagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, Madras. All these suits were filed on 17.4.1978. The trial court dismissed the suits. So also the learned single Judge. Hence, these L.P.As. Thus, the two courts below have refused to grant a decree for specific performance.2. In the light of the contentions ...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. N.P.V. Ramasamy Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: [1999]95CompCas202(Mad); 1997CriLJ412
Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. These appeals have been filed in this court by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, challenging the acquittal of the respondent in respect of the offences under sections 9(1)(c), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), punishable under section 56 of the Act, in E.O.C.C. Nos. 1252 to 1255 of 1985, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Madras. 2. It is better to render a common judgment in all these four appeals, since these cases relate to the seizure of documents from the house of the respondent on a single day and the Chief Enforcement Officer alone has been examined as P.W. 1 in all these cases. 3. The gravamen of the allegation in Criminal Appeal No. 676 of 1986, against the respondent/accused is that during 1980, the wife, son and daughters of the respondent/accused went to Malaysia, and purchased and brought foreign goods worth about Rs. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chandrahasan, Prisoner (Accused No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4308
Rengasami, J.1. The reference R.T. No. 1/96 and C.A. 128/96 arise from the conviction and sentences imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in S.C. No. 89/91 for the offences under Sections 418, 302, 302 read with 149 and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. 2. The learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellants viz. the appellants 1 to 5 each under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months, appellants 3 to 5 each under Section 302 (2 counts) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for 18 months on each count 2nd appellant under Section 302, IPC, and sentenced to death and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default to undergo 18 months R.I. subject to the confirmation of the High Court, appellants 1 and 2 each under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to undergo 6...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »