Chennai Court June 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.
K. Narayani Vs. the Registrar, High Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ325
ORDERD. Raju, J.W.P. No. 239 of 1996:1. The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief:.certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the order in Roc. No. 590l/92C1, dated 4.3.1993 and quash the same as illegal and unreasonable and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as per relevant rules from the date of her application seeking promotion....2. The impugned order of the High Court made on the Administrative Side reads as hereunder:On a careful consideration of the petition of T mt. K. Narayani, Copyist. District Court, Thanjavur, the remarks of the District Judge, West Thanjavur, and other connected records of the case, the High Court passes the following order: In view of the earlier acceptance of the permanent relinquishment and Rule 47 (2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the request of T mt. K. Narayani, Copyist, Distri...
B. Muthuvairam Vs. the Principal, Pachiappa's College, Madras and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad121
ORDER1. The petitioner was a third year B. A. Philosophy student in the Pachaiappa's College, Madras, He also claims to be the General Secretary of the College Students' Union at the relevant time. On 15-9-1995 he was taking his examination in English in Hall No. 39. The examination time was between 9.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. After having entered the examination hall, the petitioner says, that at about 11.30 a.m., he heard some commotions in the place below the examination hall. Says the petitioner, that he apprehended the problem as relating to a student and as General Secretary he sought permission to go out and enquire into the matter. It turned to be a problem between the Watchman and a parent of one student and he therefore, returned to the examination hall. According to the petitioner one Professor Ramabushanam questioned his entry into the hall, but the petitioner was assaulted by the Professor. In a short while, the first respondent, Principal arrived at the scene and the petitio...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Amalgamations Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: [2000]245ITR808(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on credit guarantee to ensure payment of the loan taken to discharge the estate duty liability in respect of the estate of the late S. Anantharamakrishnan for which the assessee is a controlled company, should be allowed as a revenue expenditure ?' 2. The point for consideration is whether the expenditure incurred on credit guarantee to ensure payment of the loan taken to discharge the estate duty liability in respect of the estate of the late S. Anantharamakrishnan for which the assessee is a controlled company, should be allowed as a revenue expenditure. A similar question came up for consideration before this court i...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. S. Kalaivanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR572(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the applicant, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under Section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act : '(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the throwing of the individual property into the hotchpot of the joint family would not amount to a 'disposition' within the meaning of Section 27(1) of the Estate Duty Act, read with the Explanation to Section 2(15) of the Estate Duty Act and (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 13 of the Estate Duty Act cannot be applied to a case of blending of personal property with the character of the Hindu undivided family property and, consequently, the inclusion of the value of the property in its entirety is not correct ?' 2. In so far as the first question is concerned, the point for considera...
N.S. Karuppanna Gounder Vs. Nagammal, Wife of Subramanian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC1; (1996)IIMLJ470
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above civil revision petition was filed against an order, dated 5.2.1990 in unnumbered E.A. No. of 1989 in O.S. No. 172 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai. The said E.A., for delivery was dismissed by applying the principles laid down by this Court in the decision reported in Devendra v. Badrabagu, I.L.R. 1986 Mad. 72 as barred by limitation. It was contended before the lower court that since delivery was already ordered within one year from the date when the sale became absolute in E.A. No. 333 of 1982, the present application was only to execute or give effect to that order of delivery and that therefore Article 134 of Limitation Act cannot have any application, for that Article only applies to an application for delivery and it does not apply when the application had already been ordered. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Article 136 of the Limitation Act is the proper provision to be applied because that article...
V. Mani Vs. Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Sites and Servi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC164; (1996)IIMLJ502
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3.1.1995 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 1445 of 1994. In the writ petition the petitioner sought for quashing the Resolution No. 90/93 of the first respondent as communicated to the petitioner in letter No. SS. 1/20903/93 dated 9.12.1993 and consequently forbear the respondents from permitting or issuing any licence in favour of the fourth respondent or to anybodyelse at Shop No. 1. M.M.D.A. Colony, Arumbakkam, Madras-106 to run a flour-cum- shikkakai mill by issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus.2. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding the denial of flour mill licence to the fourth respondent, or refusing to permit to run a flour mill in Shop No. 1 in question would be denying the right of the fourth respondent to locate a flour mill and it would affect his business. Learned single Judge has further opined that the one is a mixed resident zone. Therefore, the...
The Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College Vs. A. Pandian and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC337; (1996)IIMLJ345
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petition raises an interesting question as to the scope, ambit and interpretation of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Private Colleges Act). The petitioner is a college at Sivakasi. The first respondent was employed as a demonstrator in Chemistry. He was appointed as a probationer in the subject Chemistry by an order dated 6.8.1977 of the petitioner. The appointment was a temporary one for the academic year 1977-78 which ended on 31.5.1978. The first respondent's service came to an end on the expiry of the academic year 1977- 78. In the academic year 1978-79, a regular vacancy arose in the petitioner's college. The first respondent was appointed in the post of demonstrator of Chemistry with effect from 5.7.1978, and the first respondent also joined duty on 5.7.1978. The first respondent was taken in as a probationer for a period of 2 years with effect from 5.7.1978. An agreement...
K. Balakrishnan Vs. the Special Tahsildar (L.A.), North Neighbourhood ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ236
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. This petition is to condone the delay of 2521 days in filing the appeal against the award in earlier L.A.O.P. No. 46 of 1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, dated 2.2.1988.2. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that the court below had passed an award on 2.2.1988. The copy application was filed on 5.2.1988. Certified copy of the award was made ready on 4.3.1988. Delivery was taken on the same day itself. In the middle of May, 1988. The petitioner met one of his relatives G. Sethuraman who is practising as Advocate in this Court. He, in turn, took the petitioner and two others to his Senior K. Venkatasubba Raju at No. 16, Law Chambers, High Court, Madras-104. They handed over the certified copies of the judgment and award of the court below and other particulars and also gave necessary funds for purchase of the stamp papers, for filing expenses and for fees.3. The petitioner and others were informed that the appeal may be filed immediately on ...
National Westminster Bank Ltd. Vs. Devraj Mensee and Co. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: [1997]88CompCas625(Mad)
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The second defendant in C.S. No. 1453 of 1993 on the file of this court is the appellant before us. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein, as plaintiffs, filed the above suit, against the two defendants for the following reliefs : '..... to pass a decree and judgment jointly and severally against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 - (a) for the recovery of Rs. 23,03,471 (rupees twenty-three lakhs three thousand four hundred and seventy-one) with interest at 24.75 per cent. per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation; (b) cost of the suit; and (c) grant such further or other reliefs ...' 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they got acquainted with the first defendant herein some time in the year 1987-88 and were dealing with it for some time. Though they were acquainted during that period, the business transaction was not that much, and it is said that some time during the year 1991, the first defendant company requested the plaintiffs to supply fresh cons...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tirupur Textiles (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR186(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following four questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act) : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payments made beyond 15th December, 1977 should be treated as advance tax and should be taken into consideration for the purpose of levy of interest under s. 139(8) of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961 should be allowed in respect of a new unit at Bhavani wherein the assessee is doing certain processing work only 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not considering the question whether the new unit at Bhavani could be said to be engaged in the manufacture or production or articles and consequently w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »