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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ravichandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR634(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, in the case of the partner of a firm which had become defunct, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in coming to the conclusion that the unabsorbed depreciation relating to the defunct firm which had closed its business in the assessment year 1978-79 must be carried forward and set off against the profits of the assessee from other business in the assessment for the year 1979-80 ?' 2. The assessee is a partner in the firm by name Sri Abirami Cotton Mills. The assessee is deriving income from property and share income from three firms. He was also a partner in a firm by name Sri Abirami Cotton Mills, which has been incurring losses year after year right from its inception. That firm was sold as a going concern in the course of the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee had certain carried forward ...
Aeroflot Russian International Airlines Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Lab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: (2002)IVLLJ140Mad
J. Kanakaraj, J.1. The main writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent setting aside the order of termination imposed by the writ-petitioner on the second respondent. This Court has held that such order of the Shops Act Authority will mean that the second respondent was never terminated at all. She is deemed to be in service. Taking note of the above legal position, I direct the writ-petitioner to pay the wages of the second respondent from May 1996, at the rate of Rs. 4650 per month till the disposal of the main writ petition. The back wages amount to Rs. 90.000 and the second respondent seeks payment of a portion of the said amount. I direct the writ-petitioner to deposit the said sum of Rs. 90,000 to the credit of TSC No. 26 of 1994 on the file of the first respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the first respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 to the second respondent on an application to...
S. Venkataramani Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and Two ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC188
ORDERM. Srinivasan, A.C.J.1. The impugned order was passed on 3.11.1989 against the petitioner by Senior Regional Manager, T.N.C.S.C Limited, Thanjavur. In the order, it was found that the petitioner was guilty of Manipulating and altering the entries in the records to suit his convenience and he was responsible for a total loss of Rs. 3,16,413-60 to the Corporation. Other charges were also found against him. The punishment imposed was to stop his annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect excluding the period of leave, if any, besides recovery of 25% of loss which worked out to 79,103.40 from out of the total loss of Rs. 3,16,413-60 sustained by the Corporation. An order was passed on 9.12.1983 to recover the said amount of Rs. 79,103-40 at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from his pay. He filed an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and got stay. The appeal was disposed of on 5.10.1991. All the findings were con...
South India Salt Manufacturers Association Represented by Its Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ175
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed by the South India Salt Manufacturers Association, a registered body under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder, for the following relief:To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith take all necessary and effective steps to discharge the ash slurry let out from the North Madras Thermal Power Project (hereinafter referred to as NMTPP), through some other alternate source, without discharging the same into the salt lands in the North Madras Belt, viz., Athipattu South, North, Thillai and Vallur Salt Factory areas as also the back waters of Pulicot lake and Buckingham Canal over an extent of 5,000 acres in the occupation of the members of the petitioner- association as lessees-cum -licencees under the 4th respondent, thereby keeping the said salt manufacturing lands in Athipattu, etc., villages in Chengai- M.G.R. District, free from any pollution...
Fathima Tiles Vs. Sudarsan Trading Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ580
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner in O.P.No. 358 of 1982, on the file of this Court, is the appellant. The petition was filed for rectification of the Register or removal of the registered trademark, under Section 56 read with Section 107 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.2. The allegations in the petition are that the petitioner has been manufacturing and selling tiles by using the trade mark of 'Umbrella' from January, 1976. It has applied for registration of its Trade Mark consisting of the device 'Umbrella' on 20.12.1980 claiming user from January, 1976 and the same is pending consideration. It is further averred that one Messrs. Eastern Clay Works, Sudarsan Building, Calicut had filed O.S.No. 3 of 1982 on the file of the Additional District Court, Trichur against the appellant herein (petitioner) for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner, its servants or agents from manufacturing and selling tiles with the Trade Mark consisting of the device 'Umbr...
Nagoor Hanifa Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ880
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is a case of quadruple murder, in which the appellant Nagoor Hanifa faced his trial in S.C. No. 119 of 1987 before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madras. The charge was framed against the appellant, in respect of each of the deceased under Section 302, I.P.C.2. The gravamen of the charge is that on 18/19-5-1987 at about 2.00 a.m. mid-night at Door No. 38, Kutty Maistry Street, Sevenwells, Madras-79, the appellant Nagoor Hanifa, committed the murders of one Sabiya Begum, her son Jiyabudeen aged about 2 years, her daughter Aneeth Fathima aged about 4 years and her husband Abdul Muthaliff, by spilling over the kerosene in their room and on their person and igniting with a match stick, and thereby he intentionally caused the death of the persons referred above.3. Hereinafter, we shall refer to Sabiya Begum, the wife as D1, Jiyabudeen and Aneeth Fathima, the children as D2 and D3 and Abdul Muthaliff, the husband as D4.4. On termination of trial,...
The State Vs. Gangaraman and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ510
1. This appeal filed by the Food Inspector, Corporation of Coimbatore, through the Public Prosecutor, is directed against the judgment in C.A. No. 287 of 1985 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, acquitting the respondents for the offence under Sections 7(1),, 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(1a)(a)(m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.2. Originally, the respondents faced the trial in respect of the above said offences in C.C. No. 352 of 1985, on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, in which they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against this judgment, the respondents filed an appeal in the I Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A. No. 287 of 1985, which ended in acquittal as referred to earlier.3. Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Mad)609; [1998]230ITR288(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961; For Both the assessment years : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the assets transferred by the Government to the assessee even though the assessee is not the legal owner of the property ?' For the asst. yr. 1974-75 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 7,76,205 being the contribution to the insurance fund is admissible deduction 2. The assessee is a State Government undertaking engaged in providing passenger transport. The ITO while completing the assessments for asst. yrs. 1973-74 and 1974-75 disallowed the claim of depreciation to the extent of Rs. 4,44,360 for asst. yr. 1973-74 and Rs. 6...
Rajendran and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1996
Reported in: II(1996)DMC358
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.1989 in S.C. No. 43 of 1989, on tine file of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, convicting the appellants under Section 498-A, I.P.C, and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to undergo S.I. for one month. Originally, the appellants were charged for the offences under Sections 302, 302 read with Sections 34 and 498-A, I.P.C. After trial, they were acquitted in respect of the charges under Section 302, I.P.C, and Section 302 r/w Section 34, I.P.C.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:On the side of prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined, Exs. PI to P14 were marked. P.W. 1 Kandasamy is a resident of Udayarpalayam. P.W. 5 Ramalingam is the uncle of P.W. 1 (PW. l's sister's husband). Deceased Kasthuri is the sister of P.W. 1 and wife of A-l Rajendran. A-2 and A-3 are the parents of A-l.3. Four years back, marriage between A-l Raje...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.C. Sathiyavathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR109(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that the interest income attributable to the contributions made by the assessee to the revocable trust created by her husband for the benefit of his would be son-in-law/daughter-in-law cannot be assessed to tax in her hands in terms of s. 61 of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether the impugned interest income is taxable under s. 64(v)/(vi) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The husband of the assessee created two trusts for the benefit of the would be daughter-in-law and would be son-in-law. Clause 19 of the trust deed declared that the trusts shall be irrevocable. However, in cl. 22 of the said deed it has been stipulated that if the intended marriage did not take place within a period of 20 years from the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »