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.
N.V. Damodaran Nair Vs. the District Collector and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC12
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This petition is frivolous one. It is filed by a retired official of the Co-operative Societies Department. He was a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. While in service, he was allotted a house by the accommodation Controller, Salem on a provisional rent of Rs. 75 pjn. subject to fixation of rent. It was later fixed by the authorities at Rs. 200. The owner of the house filed a proceeding for recovery of the arrears as well as interest from the Accommodation Controller. In that proceeding. The Accommodation Controller raised all sorts of defences to defeat the claim of the owner, but, he failed. After a decree was passed by the court, in that proceeding, the Accommodation Controller has called upon the present petitioner and others similarly situated to pay the amounts due from them. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 3,910 due for the period from 1.8.1975 to 1.5.1977.2. In the present writ petition, the followin...
Ravi Bhatt Vs. the Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ220
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. 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 admit 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...
Jayarani Vs. Rajamanickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ588
Srinivasan, J.1. The petition for divorce is filed on the ground of adultery combined with cruelty. The wife is the petitioner. The District Judge after having found that adultery is not true has granted a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty alone. That decree cannot be sustained in view of the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act. Under that Act, divorce can be granted under Section 10 of the Act, only when the adultery is combined with other acts mentioned therein. For mere cruelty, divorce cannot be granted. If at all, the court can grant only judicial separation under Section 32 of the Act. This principle is laid down in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Maria Mercy Virgenia v. Lazar (1992) 1 L.W. 43. On a perusal of the records, we are convinced that the evidence is overwhelming to prove the cruelty on the part of the husband which will justify a decree for divorce a menea et toro, in other words, a decree for judicial separation. The petitioner's counsel draws our at...
Vermonica Banumathi Francis Vs. John Duraiswami Francis
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad337
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. It is very interesting case, in which the parties have married admittedly three times. The petition is filed by the wife against her husband. According 10 the address given by the petitioner in the original petition, the respondent is living away in Sri Lanka. The petitioner has also stated that she was serving as senior Head Nurse in Muscat at the time of filing of the petition. According to the petitioner, she married the respondent in accordance with Hindu custom on 7-11-1985 at Thiruchi KumaraVayalurtemple. Again the petitioner converted into a Christian and got married in a Church at Ulsoor, Bangalore on 30-11-1985. For the third time, the parties chose to effect a marriage under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act on 13-12-1985 at Thiruchi.2. It is seen from the records that the notice in the original petition had not been returned as served. A letter would appear to have been written to the District Judge by the respondent, which was mentioned by th...
Shoe Specialities Ltd. and Others Vs. Tracstar Investment Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas471(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J.1. All these appeals arise against the order in Company Petition No. 3/111(4) SRB/94 [See Tracstar Investment Ltd. v. Gordon Woodroffe Ltd. ]. Except C.M.A. No. 132 of 1996, all the other appeals are preferred by the various respondents in the company petition. C.M.A. No. 132 of 1996 is filed by the petitioner in respect of that portion of the finding which went against them. 2. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the parties hereafter will be according to their rank before the Company Law Board. 3. In its first meeting after the board of directors was reconstituted on June 2, 1994, the following subjected came for discussion and resolutions were passed by the second respondent as under : It was reported to and noted by the board that the share certificate No. 47768 for 5,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each fully paid-up of Gordon Woodroffe Ltd., registered in the name of the company, bearing Distinctive Nos. 02617978 to 03117977, both inclusive, has been lo...
Gajendra Sha and anr. Vs. M. Govindarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: 1996(1)CTC492; (1996)IMLJ564
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This civil revision petition is against the order dated 19.12.1989 in R.C.A. No. 34 of 1988, on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, reversing the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P. No. 3668 of 1985, dated 11.12.1987, on the file of the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.2. The eviction petition was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (own occupation). The landlord's petition was ordered by the rent controller. However, the appellate authority has dismissed the same. Hence the landlord has filed the civil revision petition in this Court.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. Krishnamitra urged before me mat the appellate authority ought to have confirmed the order of eviction because it has been proved that the petitioners are carrying on business in a rented building, namely, No. 86, Sembudoss Street, Madras-1 under the name and style of A.A. Sha ...
K.S. Shanthilal Vs. Sarojini Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)1MLJ562
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This civil revision petition has been preferred against the order in E.P. No. 39 of 1988, dated 4.5.1990, on the file of the District Munsif, Gudalur.2. The decree-holder is the petitioner herein. He has obtained a decree on 26.3.1974 in O.S. No. 49 of 1973. The decree is for delivery of possession of the property. The execution court dismissed the execution petition, because the judgment-debtor was granted patta for the suit property under the provisions of The Gudalur Janmam Estate etc. Act 24 of 1969 which came into force on 27.11.1974. The judgment-debtor was a tenant under the decree-holder. The suit was filed against the judgment-debtor by the decree-holder for delivery of possession of the suit property and the same was ordered on 26.3.1974. The aforesaid Act came into force with effect from 27.11.1974. As per the provisions of the said Act, all the Janmam lands vested with the Government and the judgment-debtor has obtained ryotwari patta.3. Before this C...
T. Sebastian Vs. the Regional Manager, India Tourism Development Corpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ283
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The parties to the lis and the subject matter of dispute are inter-linked and therefore, by consent of both parties, both the writ petitions are taken up together for final hearing.2. First I will take up W.P. No. 372 of 1996. This writ petition was filed to call for the records relating to the impugned order made in Ref. P/DPC dated 1.11.1995 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Traffic Supervisor with effect from 27.10.1992.3. The facts leading to the filing of W.P. No. 372 of 1996, as found in the supporting affidavit filed, are as follows:The petitioner was working as Tourist driver from 7.1.1970 in the India Tourism Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) at its Regional Office at Madras. He has been sincerely and efficiently discharging his duties without any blemish or black mark. As per the settlement dated 16.4.1985 arrived at...
A.M. Ponnurangam Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR454(Mad)
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. A short question on the income-tax law is involved in this writ petition by the assessee, which is an HUF. Since the matter arises from an order of the CIT in revision under s. 264 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') it has come by way of writ petition. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the said order of the CIT dt. 14th October, 1995 and consequently, to direct the said CIT (1st respondent) to grant the 'relief' 'to the petitioner-assessee for the asst. yr. 1980-81. The said 'relief' sought for is depreciation allowance under s. 32(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of buses plied by the assessee during the first three months of the previous year in relation to the abovesaid assessment year, that is from 1st April, 1979 to 30th June, 1979. 3. The assessee-HUF was a bus operator during the said asst. yr. 1980-81 and was running the buses upto the abovesaid date 30th June, 1979. The Karta of the HUF gave the buses owned by the HUF to a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR227(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, read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount representing 'preference share redemption reserve' at the beginning of the accounting period should be included as part of the capital base under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company and the assessment year involved is 1979-80 for which the accounting year ended on December 31, 1978. The Surtax Officer, while computing the statutory allowance, reduced the capital employed to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs which represented 'preference share redemption reserve' on the view that such reserve was earmarked for a known liability, namely, redemption of preference shares of the company, and as such the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »