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.
Pichammal Vs. Arjuna thever
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC352
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This, is a revision directed against the order dated 31.10.1986 passed in M.C. No. 36 of 1984, on the file of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, dismissing the maintenance application filed by the petitioner.2. The petitioner Pichammal married the respondent on 6.6.1979. Thereafter, they lived together for nearly 2 1/4 years. The respondent/husband in order to get a job left for Eraq, where he worked as Driver and was getting Rs. 4, 000/- per month as salary. During that period, the petitioner lived with her parents. The respondent/husband was at Eraq for 2 1/4 years. During that period, the husband did not send any money to the wife/petitioner. After return from abroad to his native village, the respondent/husband took the petitioner/wife to his house and both of them lived together only for 15 days. Then the respondent/husband began to demand 25 sovereigns or jewels as sreedhana articles, since he was in a good status, by getting a job abroad. Wh...
B. Saravan Satish Kumar @ Jayachandran Vs. Government of India and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC297
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner appeared in person and argued the case. He is the Editor and Proprietor of 'Indian Jaya' news magazine. He is a voter in South Madras Parliament and also T. Nagar Assembly Constituencies. He filed the above writ petition for the following relief:To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue two colours of Election Slips (one for electing and another for bi-election) to the public for the coming election and pass such further orders as this court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the candidates who contest the election give various promises to the people at the time of election and request the people to vote for them. The people, on the basis of such premises, elect those candidates. According to the petitioner, the elected candidates fail to fulfill their premises given at the time of election. Therefore he requests that the voters, who are given the right t...
Mohammed Haneef Vs. Haleel Basha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ301
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 290 of 1986, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Panruti, is the appellant.2. Respondents filed the above suit for recovery of property, on the allegation that the appellant is in possession of the property as a tenant and that he has defaulted in paying the rent. It is further contended that the tenancy has been terminated by issuing a notice under Section 196 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the respondents are entitled to get possession from the defendant.3. In his written statement, defendant did not challenge the title of the property. But his contention was that he has taken the land on lease and has put up a non-residential building and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. Within the statutory period, he also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act to purchase the property. Evidence was taken on the application filed by the defendant wherein it was...
Abdul Wahab Vs. Raman Panickar and 8 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ559
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 650 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Valangaiman at Kumbakkonam 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.No. 1546 of 1984 was filed by the sixth respondent here in to appoint a court guardian for the first defendant. After medical evidence, the lower court by order dated 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.No. ...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. L.G. Ramamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR677(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that in the valuation of unquoted equity shares, for the purpose of determining the break-up value, provision for taxation should be reduced by the advance tax paid ?' 2. The point for consideration is, in the valuation of unquoted equity shares for the purpose of determining the break-up value, whether provision for taxation should be reduced by the advance tax paid. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania vs . CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that while valuing the unquoted equity shares of a company under r. 1D, no deduction on account of capital gains tax which would have been payable in case the shares were sold on the valuation da...
T.M. Raghunathan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR826(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 s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable to be assessed on the income of Rs. 25,000 as remuneration from the company of which he was the managing director for the asst. yr. 1973-74 ?' 2. The assessee is the managing director of Falcon Wires (P) Ltd. For the asst. yr. 1973-74, the financial year ending on 31st March, 1973, the assessee's remuneration was fixed at Rs. 2,500 per mensem at a board's resolution, dt. 4th June, 1971. However, by another resolution, dt. 31st December, 1972, the remuneration was reduced for the period from 1st April, 1972 to 31st March, 1973, to Rs. 10,000 per annum, in view of the company's difficult financial position. The case of the assessee is that he is liable only on a sum of Rs. 10,000 as per the latter resolution, dt. 31st December, 1972. He...
State by Food Inspector Vs. Ganesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC311
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This appeal filed by the Food Inspector Cuddalore Municipality represented by Public prosecutor, Madras is directed against the Judgment dated 5.10.1984 in G.O. No. 145 of 1984 on the file on the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, acquitting the respondent Ganesan, in respect of the offences under Sections 7(i) and 16(l)(a)(i) read with Section 2(i)(a) and (m) Rules 23 and 29 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:P.W.1 Chandran is the Food Inspector, working in Cuddalore Municipality. On 12.3.1984 at about 7.30 a.m., P.W.I along with his Assistant, went to the tea shop of the accused. P.W.I served Ex.P. 1 form No. 6 on the respondent expressing his intention to take sample and took the sample of decoration mixed with sugar, on payment of Rs. 1.50 and obtained Ex.P.2 cash receipt The the sample was divided into three parts and the same were put in three bottles. After serving all the formalities, the...
Rajendran and anr. Vs. Ramanuja Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ444
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in Order S. No. 2129 of 1979 on the file of learned Additional District Munsif, Villupuram and the appellants before the first appellate court namely, Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in A.S. No. 104 of 1982. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the same or in the alternative, for possession in case the defendant trespasses during the pendency of the suit and for determination of the future profits under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court was that the suit properties were purchased by one Muthu Reddiar vendor of the plaintiffs in 1944 and 1945 and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same, that he sold an extent of 52 1/2 cents, of which, the suit first item is a portion to the first plaintiff a...
Guna Alias Gunasekaran Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ626
ORDER1. The accused in custody, by name, Guna alias Gunasekaran, in Crime No. 245 of 1995 of Kullanchavadi Police Station in South Arcot Vallalar District, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 Indian Penal Code, has preferred this revision, canvassing the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Cuddalore, in Crl.M.P. No. 2690 of 1995 on 31-8-1995, declining to enlarge the petitioner on bail which was sought for on the ground of failure to file the charge sheet or final report within 90 days from the date of the arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences, as it is a failure of mandatory functioning. 2. The petitioner-accused, among the other accused, was admittedly arrested by the respondent-police for the abovesaid alleged offences on 29-5-1995 and produced to judicial custody on the next day itself. Since the case registered against the petitioner and others was under investigation, the final report as required by t...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. S. Raja Ramalingam W/F.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Mad)662; [1997]227ITR622(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, gifts made by the assessee totalling Rs. 2,50,077 by remitting moneys from America during the asst. yr. 1974-75 were exempt from tax under s. 5(1)(ii)(a) of the GT Act for the asst. yr. 1974-75 2. The assessee, Dr. S. Raja Ramalingam, is a resident of Salem. He is employed as a doctor at Canton in Ohio in United States of America having left India on 28th June, 1968. On 11th May, 1973 he obtained a draft from the State Bank of India, New York Branch drawn in favour of his father Sri V. S. D. Sundararaja Chettiar on the State Bank of India, Salem, for Rs. 89,552.24. That was despatched by him by post to his father at Salem on 14th May, 1973 along with a covering letter wherein he stated that the said sum was a gift to his brother S. Kumarashanmugham to ena...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »