Chennai Court April 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.
Michel Joseph Lawrance Vs. District Magistrate and District Collector, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4091; 1996(2)CTC763
Thanikkachalam, J.1. The petitioner is the cousin brother of the detenu. The habeas corpus petition was filed to set aside the order of detention issued under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, hereinafter called the Act, by the first respondent-District Magistrate and District Collector of Nellai Kattabomman District in M.H.S. CONFDL. No. 60/95 dated 30-8-1995. The detenu Stalin son of Michel is an ex-serviceman. After retirement he came to the village. The detenu is stated to be person, who takes up public cause and a devout Catholic. In the matter of selling marine products he used to help the fishermen by having a middleman. Therefore, enemity was kept up between him and the other villagers. 2. On 16-8-1996 at 8 a.m. the detenu came to Idinthakarai Meenvadi with a country-made bomb in his right hand. At that time Louis, Elango and Susai Anthony were standing in front of the house of Franklin. The detenu by looking at them and shouted at them by saying : (vernacular matter is omitted). ...
P. thenmozhi Vs. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Depar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4304
ORDER1. The wife of the detenu is the petitioner herein. P. P. Palani also Palanichamy alias M. Palani is the detenu. The habeas corpus petition is to call for the records in proceedings Memo No. 231/BDFGIS/95 dated 7-8-1995 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Mr. P. Palani before this Court for setting him at liberty forthwith. 2. The order of detention was passed on 7-8-1995. One Tr. Mohanraj, aged 30 son of Munisamy residing at No. 4, Parthasarathi Street, Pulianthope, Madras-12 gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Pulianthope. In his petition he has stated that on 1-8-1995 at 5 p.m. at 10th Block, Periyar Nagar, Pulianthope, Madras he consumed I.D. arrack one glass sold by Tr. P. P. Palani by paying Rs. 10 /- to him. He did not take anything thereafter and reached home at 19 hours. Immediately he developed giddiness, irri...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundaram Spinning Mills and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR214(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. These three tax cases, relating to three different assessees are for the asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1973-74 and 1968-69, respectively. The Tribunal has referred the following common question for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the Department, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 'Whether the Tribunal is correct and justified in law in holding that the expression 'an assessment to be made under s. 143(3), used in s. 144B, is confined only to the assessment to be made under s. 143 and does not cover reassessment to be made under s. 147 of the IT Act with the consequence that the procedure prescribed under s. 144B and extended time-limit provided in the Expln. to s. 153 is not available to reassessments to be made under s. 147 ?'2. Tax Case No. 573 of 1983 relates to the asst. yr. 1973-74, in respect of which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1973. The assessee is a registered firm. For the assessment year under consi...
Enforcement Directorate, Madras Vs. N.P.V. Ramasamy Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: 1997(89)ELT679(Mad)
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 '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 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 gravemen 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. 1,62,000/-, which amount was...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundaram Spinning Mills and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)109
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :These three tax cases, relating to three different assessees are for the asst. yrs. 1973-74, 1973-74 and 1968-69, respectively. The Tribunal has referred the following common question for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the Department, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').'Whether the Tribunal is correct and justified in law in holding that the expression an assessment to be made under s. 143(3), used in s. 144B, is confined only to the assessment to be made under s. 143 and does not cover reassessment to be made under s. 147 of the IT Act with the consequence that the procedure prescribed under s. 144B and extended time-limit provided in the Expln. to s. 153 is not available to reassessments to be made under s. 147 ?'2. Tax Case No. 573 of 1983 relates to the asst. yr. 1973-74, in respect of which the previous year ended on 31st March, 1973. The assessee is a registered firm. For the assessment year under considera...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M. Ramamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR687(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following common question of law for the opinion of this court. 'Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that for the purpose of valuation of the share of interest of a partner in a firm under section 5(1)(xxxii), the value of land and building of the firm should not be excluded ?' A similar question came up for consideration before this court in CWT v. D. C. Barley Dharmaraja : [1986]158ITR369(Mad) wherein this court held that having regard to the object and purpose of clause (xxxii) of section 5(1) if any land or building or interest in any land or building or any other asset had been excluded under any of the clauses in sub-section (1) of section 5, those items should not again be given exemption under clause (xxxii) of section 5(1) and that clause (xxxii) will have to be interpreted as not including any land or building or interest in any land or building or asset, which had been r...
Kazy Silks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Chairman Madras Port Trust and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC362
ORDERShivraj Patil, J.1. Briefly stated the facts leading to the Writ petition are: The first respondent had notified in Gazette Notification No. 48, that certain Silk Yam is for auction and also brought it for sale in lots. The auction was held by the second respondent at the instance of the first respondent. The petitioner did participate in the auction for two lots, viz., Lot Nos. 1604, and 1605/94 for Rs. 27,81,000 and 13,06,000 and on the same day i.e., 27.1.1995 it deposited 25% of the bid amount amounting to Rs. 6,96,000 and Rs. 3,26,500 respectively for the lots. As per the conditions of sale the balance amount shall be deposited within three days of sale, and the petitioner had taken Demand Draft for Rs. 30,64,500 and contacted the first respondent to accept the same, and confirmation order in his favour, but the respondents did not pass any order on those bids.2. On 10.2.1995, the petitioner received the impugned order simply stating that its bid is rejected. The body of the ...
Abdul Wahab Vs. Raman Panickar and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad9; (1996)IIMLJ559
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S. 650/81 on the file of the District Munsif, Valangai-man at Kumbakonam is the petitioner in both the revisions. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition to divide the property into two halves and allot one such share to him. The first defendant is entitled to other half share, The defendants 2 to 4 are the tenants. The other respondents are the legal representatives of the first defendant.2. During the pendency of the suit I.A. 1546/84 was filed by the sixth respondent herein to appoint a court guardian for the first defendant. After medical evidence, the lower Court by order dt. 19-6-85 allowed the application for appointment of a guardian to the first defendant. The plaintiff has failed to take steps for the appointment of guardian for the first defendant. The Court below had passed an ex parte preliminary decree on 3-7-85.3. Thereafter the petitioner herein filed I.A. 883/88 to bring the legal repres...
Raman and Raman (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR776(Mad)
K.A. 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 : '1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 5,37,359 or part thereof was assessable to tax under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The assessee-company was carrying on the business of operating buses, lorry service, etc. The Tamil Nadu Government enacted the Tamil Nadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriage (Acquisition) Act, 1971, by which the Government had taken over all the buses of the transport operators who were holding fifty or more stage carriage permits. Since the assessee had fifty-one routes with sixty-five buses plying, the transport undertaking of the assessee was compulsorily acquired by the Government. The buses were taken over at the value of Rs. 12,80,000 and the automobile shed was taken over for Rs. 29,700. Th...
Southern Roadways Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: [1999]235ITR21(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has stated a case and referred the following questions of law 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 taking over of the bus transport undertaking by the Government of Tamil Nadu from the assessee under the Tamil Nadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (Act 37 of 1971), amounted to a 'compulsory acquisition' as defined in article 31(2A) of the Constitution thus attracting the provisions of Section 41(2) and Section 45 of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the acquisition of stage carriages of the assessee under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Fleet Operators Stage Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1971, amounted to the assets of the assessee being sold within the meaning of Sections 32 and 41 of the Income-tax Act or transfer within ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »