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. National Iranian Oil Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR630(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department the Tribunal referred the following three questions for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78 for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in T. S. Balaram, ITO vs . Volkart Brothers : [1971]82ITR50(SC) , the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a mistake apparent from records within the meaning of s. 154 of the Act and in directing the IAC to rectify the assessment to allow extra relief under s. 80K of the IT Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the IAC was not justified in not granting the extra relief under s. 80K to the assessee on the basis of the certificate, dt. 25th Feb., 1980, issued by the Indian company suo motu when the ITO did not revise the original certificate issued under s. 197(3) of the Act 3. Whether the Tribunal's finding t...
Union of India Vs. Goodyear India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1996
Reported in: 1997(89)ELT649(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. These Writ Appeals have been taken up together at the request of all the Counsel, as common questions arise for consideration. The short facts necessary for the purpose of this Judgment are that the appellants imported natural rubber, known as smoked rubber sheets either directly or through the State Trading Corporation. The Customs Department insisted that the importers are liable to pay additional duty, as per Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In several cases, the State Trading Corporation had paid the duty and collected from the importers and in such cases, the importers have sought for refund. In cases, where the importers had not already paid the duty, they have sought for either a declaration that the levy of duty is illegal or for a writ of mandamus, forbearing the Authorities from collecting such duty. The following Appeals arise out of the writ petitions, in which the prayer is for refund of the duty paid : The other Writ Appeals arise out o...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amalgamations Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR608(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following eight questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79, respectively : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was carrying on business and hence the income of the assessee should be computed under the head 'Business' and not under the heads 'Income from house property' and 'Income from other sources' 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no income from property No. 24, Edward Elliots Road, Madras, should be computed for inclusion in the assessee's total income 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest income, guarantee commission, profits on sale of assets and miscellaneous income should be considered as falling under the head 'Business' 4. Whether, on the facts and...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: [1998]231ITR761(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 and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the ITO had not validly taken recourse to s. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961 and hence the reassessment made for the asst. yr. 1971-72 was invalid 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 38(2) of the IT Act, 1961 the Tribunal was justified that for purposes of working out the terminal allowance under s. 32(1)(iii) or the profit under s. 41(2) the property which was sold should be considered to be an asset of the business of the assessee in its entirety even though only 1/3rd portion of the building was used for purposes of business ?' 2. The original assessment in this case was completed on 22nd December, 1971. It has been held by the ITO that it w...
Soosairaj Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its District Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ257
Govardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Pudukottai remanding the suit O.S. No. 760 of 1984 to the trial court for fresh disposal in the light of the directions given in the judgment.2. The plaintiff's case is as follows: The plaintiff was the successful bidder of toddy shop No. 20, in Kottaikkadu village in Alangudi taluk for a period of one year for 1983-84. The highest bid amount was Rs. 2100. Since it was less than the upset price fixed by the defendants, the auction was not confirmed. No licence was issued to the plaintiff on that account. No agreement was entered into. There was a failure of monsoon in the village and therefore the defendant is bound to refund Rs. 1,000 deposited by the plaintiff and also a sum of Rs. 1,050 paid by the plaintiff towards kist for 15 days. The plaintiff sustained a loss of Rs. 5,000 which he has given as advance to the persons who tap the toddy from the tree. While so, the plaintiff has received a notice un...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M/S. Rao Constructions, Bangalore and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad14
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. These three civil miscellaneous appeals under the Arbitration Act are by the Stale of Tamil Nadu and they are respectively against three separate ordersall dated 4-10-1993 in O.P. Nos. 40,41 and 42 of 1993 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Madurai, filed by the Arbitrator (Mr. K. Thirunavukkarasu, Superintending Engi-neer, Public Works Department, now Chief Engineer posted as Director of Irrigation Management Training Institute on deputation) appointed under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He is the sole arbitrator to arbitrate in the three disputes between the respondent contractor (the claimant before tht arbitrator) and the appellate State, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Periyar Improvement Circle. Pursuant to the said Section 14 in the said O.Ps. the said arbitrator sought for the Court below to receive his three different awards all dated 31-3-1983, and pass necessary decrees thereof.2. The Court below ...
Ravi Bhatt and Another Vs. the Director General, Armed Forces Medical ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad78; (1996)IIMLJ220
ORDER1. By an order dated 22-11-1995, in W.M.P. Nos. 25014 and 25015 of 1995, the petitioner was permitted to amend the prayer in the respective writ petitions, which runs thus:'Heard Mr. T. S. Sivagnanam, for the petitioners and Mr. T. Srinivasamoorthy, for the respondents. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the above petitions for amendment. I am satisfied that in the interest of justice, the amendment as prayed for should be ordered. Hence, both these petitions are ordered.'2. The amended prayer in W. P. No, 11133 of 1995 reads as follows:'To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ, calling for the records relating to the telegram of the first respondent bearing No. 87 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to adroit the Petitioner (Roll No. 23818) to the M.B.B.S. Course in the Armed Forces Medical College, Pune-411 040, for the 1995 Session.'3. The amended prayer in W. P. No....
Shanmugham and Others Vs. Saraswathi and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad226; CDJ1996MHC273
1. The second appeal is by defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. Conveniently the properties involved in the suit can be classified into three groups. The first group comprises items 1 to 37, second group items 38 to 44 and the third group items 45 to 57. While the trial Court dismissed the suit in entirety, the appellate Court has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for items 1 to 37 entirely and for one half share in items 45 to 57. As regards those items a preliminary decree has been passed. As regards items 38 to 44 dismissal of the suit has been confirmed by the appellate Judge. The plaintiffs have filed memorandum of cross-objections in so far as those items are concerned.2. One Muruga Pandaram had three wives Poongavanam, Pachaiammal and Nagarammal. In this case we are not concerned with Poongavanam. He executed a will marked as Ex.A-1 dated 1-7-1922. Under the will he dealt with certain propertiesin paragraph 1 which were bequeathed to his second wife Pachaiammal after his li...
C.S.P. JaIn and Co. Vs. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: [1996]87CompCas131(Mad)
Srinivasan J.1. The contention of the petitioner is that under section 27 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it is not necessary that each branch of the firm of the petitioner shall be in the charge of a separate member of the institute. According to the petitioner, one member of the institute can be in charge of several branches, under the said section. For that purpose, reliance is placed upon certain resolutions passed by the Council of Chartered Accountants. One of the resolutions, as extracted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, reads as follows : 'Resolved that the requirement of section 27 of a member being in charge of an office of a chartered accountant or a firm of such chartered accountants shall be satisfied only if the member is actively associated with such office. Such association shall be deemed to exist if the member resides in the place where the office is situated for a period of not less than 182 days i...
Chandrika Vs. M. Vijayakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC496; (1996)IIMLJ439
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The respondent in Family Court O.P. No. 199 of 1992 on the file of Principal Family Court, Madras, is the appellant in the above appeal. The husband/respondent herein filed F.C.O. No. 199 of 1992 before the said court Under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended against the appellant/wife for the grant of divorce on the ground that the wife deserted him without any just cause or reason. The Family Court, by order dated 6.3.1995, allowed the original petition and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnized on 3.3.1983 by a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the decree of the Family Court dated 6.3.95, the wife has now come forward with the present appeal before this Court under Section 19 of the Family Court Act.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition for divorce are as follows:- According to the respondent/petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent herein was solemnized on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »