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. M.K. Chandrakanth
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]225ITR101(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal, referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, for the asst. yr. 1977-78 and 1978-79 under s. 256(1) of IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of s. 63(a) of the IT Act, 1961, and s. 83 of the Indian Trust Act, the Tribunal was right in holding that the irrevocability of trusts created by the assessee on 1st October, 1969 for the benefit of his prospective son-in-law and daughter-in-law respectively was not affected by cl. 22 of the settlement deed and that the income of the trusts was not includible in the hands of the assessee ?' 2. For the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79, the relevant previous years ended on 12th April, 1977 and 12th April, 1978 respectively. The assessee is an individual deriving income from property, business and share income from a firm called M/s. M. K. Krishna Chetty. On 1st October, 1969, the assessee se...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Radha Parthasarathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR803(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 27(1) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to sub-clause (f) of clause (ii) of Explanation II to rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that in arriving at the break-up value of the shares, the provision for gratuity should be treated as a liability and accordingly should be allowed as a deduction ?' 2. The point for consideration in this case is, having regard to sub-clause (f) of clause (ii) of Explanation II to rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, in arriving at the break-up value of the shares, whether the provision for gratuity should be treated as a liability and accordingly should be allowed as deduction. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in CWT v. S. Ram : [1984]147ITR278(Mad) wherein this court held ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Tej Kaur Bedi (Decd.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR892(Mad)
K. A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given bythis court in T. C. P. Nos. 404 and 405 of 1977, the Tribunal referred thefollowing questions for the opinion of this court under Section 64(3) ofthe Estate Duty Act, 1953 : .. ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 3,09,933 being the deceased's share in the unaccounted profits of the firm of South India Steel Rolling Mills for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1967-68 could not be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the possession of the deceased's share of undisclosed profits in the firm, South India Steel Rolling Mills, was not proved in this case ?' 2. The deceased died on March 3, 1968. The deceased was a partner in the firm, South India Steel Rolling Mills. At the time of the death, the deceased, Shri M. ...
S. Subramanaiam Vs. the Joint Director of School Education (Secondary) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ343
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition is for quashing the order passed on 11.9.1987 by the first respondent and to direct the 2nd respondent to promote the petitioner as the Headmaster of Sokkalal Higher Secondary School, Mukkudal, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District.2. The petitioner joined as B.T. Assistant in the Board High School, Kalingapatti, in 1962 and later he was appointed in the second respondent school from 26.6.1964. The qualification of the petitioner is B.Sc., in Physics in 1st Class and the petitioner also applied for the post of Headmaster in the 2nd respondent-school which was vacant. Even though there were number of qualified candidates including the petitioner, the second respondent published an advertisement in 'Thina Thanthi' calling for applications from suitable persons for filling up of the post of Headmaster of his school. The petitioner as well as the other qualified candidates also applied for the said post. But the second respondent overlooking the pr...
Natarajan Vs. Ramanujam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ389
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order of acquittal in C.C. 55 of 1986, dated 5-2-1988 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate-III, Trichirapalli, acquitting the respondent Ramanujam accused in respect of the offence under Section 498, Indian Penal Code. 2. On 18-3-1986 the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent with the following allegation. On 3-12-1961 the complainant P.W. 1, married one Banumathy alias Janaki and out of that wedlock, two children were born. After his retirement, he was staying along with his wife and two children. His daughter Geethapria (P.W. 2) is the student of R.S.K. School at Kailasapuram. P.W. 1's wife Banumathy used to come along with his daughter Geethapriya to school and the accused/respondent who was used to give N.C.C. Training in the School had developed illicit intimacy with P.W. 1's wife. On 19-7-1985, when the complainant came to the house, he found that his wife was missing. He was informed ...
Arulmigu Viswewaraswami and Veeraraghava Perumal Temples Vs. R.V.E. Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC199; (1996)IIMLJ553
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.404 of 1978 on the file of Sub-Court, Coimbatore is the appellant in the above second appeal. The 1st respondent herein, the plaintiff filed the above suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for delivery of possession and mesne profits both past and future.2. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments are as follows:- The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the second defendant has been a tenant in possession of the property for the past thirty years. The rent of Rs. 300 which was originally paid was enhanced to Rs. 400 from 1965. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant lays claim to the suit property taking advantage of the litigations pending between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in respect of trusteeship. The 2nd defendant has paid rent for the period upto 19.4.1969 and the rent from 20.4,1969 is due. The plaintiff claims arrears of rent for three years. The 2nd defendant denie...
A.S. Sethurathinammal Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ385
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The objection taken by the writ petitioner against the notice issued by the respondent under Section 33(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is well founded. It is not necessary for me to go into the factual allegations and counter allegations.2. Notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner reads as follows:Whereas the Deputy Commissioner, Madras, on consideration of the report of the Inspector has reason to believe that Tmt. Scthurathinammal, person in management of the above temple, has acted adverse to the interest of the institution by investing the savings to the tune of Rs. 26,05,400 of the temple in the banks other than co-operative banks contrary to the instruction contained in G.O.Ms. No. 728. dated 14.8.1980, thus incurred 1/2% loss of interest which works out at the rate of Rs. 4,390 per year. Notice is hereby given to Thirumathi Sethurathinam Ammal to show cause in writing on or before 27.4.1983 why an order of ...
Ekavalli and ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar, Madras Export Processing Zone ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ389
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petition is for issue of mandamus directing the respondent to investigate and conduct an enquiry on the basis of the enhanced compensation amount granted in L.A.O.P.510 of 1987 dated 12.12.1988 by redetermining the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners in respects of their 1 acre and 13 cents of land in S. No. 7/1- 3, 32/2 and 32/3 situated at Kadaperi Village, Saidapet Taluk. The petitioners' lands were acquired and compensation was awarded. The petitioners received their compensation but did not seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. Later, a Reference was made under Section 18 at the instance of some other land owners covered by the same notification for acquisition. The matter was considered by the court in L.A.O.P. No. 510 of 1987 on the file of Sub court, Poonamallee. By judgment dated 12.12.1988, the compensation was enhanced in that proceeding.2. The petitioners gave a representation to the Collector on 12.5.1989 requesting him to reco...
Rahamathulla Vs. Piyare and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: 1996CriLJ4322; II(1996)DMC295
ORDER1. An important question of law, that too, of general importance is as to whether a minor child of divorced Muslim wife is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from its father even after the child attained the age of more than two years. In other words, the important question of law is whether a divorced woman can claim maintenance from her former husband for the child born to her through that husband after the child attained the age of two years under Section 125, Cr.P.C., despite the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act of 1986'). 2. The petitioner/husband has presented this revision before this Court, challenging the order dated 16-2-1993, passed in Crl. R. C. No. 62 of 1992, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, granting maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month to the 2nd respondent herein, minor Yashmin, by setting aside the order dated 12-3-19...
State by the Food Inspector, Erode Municipality Vs. V. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ387
1. This is an appeal preferred by the State through the Public Prosecutor for the Food Inspector, Erode Municipality, against the order of acquittal in C.C. No. 1015 of 1987 in respect of the offence under Section 7(i) read with Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 2(ia)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector attached to the Erode Municipality, took the sample of Milk from the respondent while he was carrying a milk can, on 30-6-1987 at 09.00 a.m. After observing all the formalities, under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and after payment of the sale price of the Milk to the respondent, the sample was taken and was sent for analysis. On receipt of the sample, the Analyst analysed the same and sent a report on 23-7-87 stating that the milk which was analysed, was found to be adulterated. So, on the basis of the report of the Analyst, P.W. 1 filed a complaint on 3-8-1987. Thereafter, he served a notice under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteratio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »