Chennai Court July 1996 Judgments
Special Officer, Salem Co-operative Primary Land Development Bank Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ1168Mad
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This Writ Petition has been preferred prayingfor calling for the records of the first respondentin A.4/13867/87 dated August 20, 1987 to quashthe same and to direct the first respondent toconsider the petition dated August 13, 1987 filedby the petitioner for condoning the delay.2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent filed an application for payment of gratuity in P.G. Application No.85/86 before the Controlling Authority. It was contested and the Controlling Authority awarded a sum of Rs. 10,500/ - to be paid to the second respondent by the petitioner. The said order was passed on March 4, 1987. It was served on the petitioner on March 16, 1987. Since the Special Officer was transferred and relieved on July 18, 1987, no appeal was filed against the order of the Controlling Authority in time. When the new incumbent took charge as Special Officer, he felt that an appeal should be filed against the said order of the Controlling Authority. A...
Tag this Judgment!Pachaiyammal and anr. Vs. Velusami Kadanthaiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC675; (1997)IMLJ83
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendants who are unsuccessful throughout before the Courts below. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No. 242 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam, for declaration of plaintiffs title to the suit properties and possession of the same and for recovery of mesne profits from the date of plaint till delivery of possession. The case of the plaintiff before the Courts below was that the suit properties and some other properties originally belonged to one Kandasami Kadanthayar, who died intestate in the month of September, 1952 without leaving any issues, that after his death, the suit properties and other properties were enjoyed by his wives, viz., one Meenakshi and the 1st defendant herein as his legal heirs, and that the plaintiff is the some of the above said Kandasami Kadanthayar's junior maternal aunt and after the death of the said person, the first defendant and the above Meenakshi Ammal were m...
Tag this Judgment!E. Rajkumar Vs. P. Nirmala Cesilia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ74
S.S. Subramani, J.1. First defendant in O.S. No. 555 of 1986, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Thirumangalam, is the appellant before this Court.2. First respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the above suit, seeking the following reliefs:.to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff(a) declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to be the Manager and Correspondent of the suit property;(b) consequent to the passing of a decree for declaration, for a permanent injunction against the first defendant, his men, agents and persons claiming under him from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property;(c) directing the first defendant t6 pay the costs of this action....3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to in this second appeal, according to their rank in the suit.4. The averments in the plaint are as follows: Plaintiff and first defendant are sister and brother, and they are the children of second defendant. The subje...
Tag this Judgment!Pachaiyammal and anr. Vs. Velusami Kandanthaiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ83
Raju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendants who are unsuccessful throughout before the courts below. The respondents plaintiff filed O.S. No. 242 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam, for declaration of Plaintiff's title to the suit properties and possession of the same and for recovery of mesne profits from the date of plaint till delivery of possession. The case of the plaintiff before the courts below was that the suit properties and some other properties originally belonged to one Kandaswamy Kandanthayar, who died intestate in the month of September, 1952 without leaving any issues, that after his death, the suit properties and other properties were enjoyed by his wives viz., one Meenakshi and the 1st defendant herein as his legal heirs, and that the plaintiff is the son of abovesaid Kandasami Kandathayar's junior maternal aunt and after the death of the said person, the first defendant and the above Meenakshi Ammal were maintained ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandma Bibi Vs. Sheik Mohamed Sahib and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ631
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 155 of 19S6, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tirukoilur. She filed the suit for declaration of her title over the schedule properties, and also for a declaration that she is entitled to the same after the lifetime of the 4th defendant, and for a permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant from alienating suit items 7 and 8, and for costs of suit.2. The material averments of the case that led to the filing of the present second appeal may be summarised as follows:The Scheduled properties belonged to late Ibran Khan Sahib son of Khadhar Khan Sahib. He executed a settlement deed on 20.7.1946 in favour of his daughter, the 4th defendant herein, and her husband Sheik Ghouse SahibThe husband of the 4th defendant also happened to be the sister's son of the executant. As per that deed, the settlees were to enjoy the properties settled without any power of alienation during the lifetime of the settlor and ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnamoorthy Vs. D.R. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ253
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 16 of 1983, on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirupattur. The subject matter of this revision is a residential building occupied by the petitioner. Landlord is the respondent herein.2. Landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the scheduled building on the ground that he needs the building bona fide for his own occupation. Initially, both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority found that the landlord is entitled to get eviction, and the claim is bona fide The matter came to this Court in revision filed by the very same petitioner in C.R.P. No. 226 of 1990. Before this Court, it was contended that the respondent has purchased a residential building and several other properties in the name of his wife and son and the subsequent acquisition disentitles the respondent from getting possession of the building. As per order dated 16.2.1990, this Court set aside the decisions of the Authorities b...
Tag this Judgment!JasmIn Roadways, Pondicherry Vs. Transport Commissioner, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad251
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition No. 2552 of 1995 is to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in R. No. E-2/48055/94 and quash the demand notice dated 22-1-1995.2. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that he is operating a stage carriage TDP 5555 since replaced by PY-01/B, 5979 on the inter-State route Marakkanam to Karayanaputhur. The permit of the said bus was originally held by one R. Ravi, son of Ramalingam, Kosa-palayam, Pondicherry and the same was transferred in the name of the petitioner by the proceedings of the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry dated 13-4-1993. The said route finds a place in the Inter-State Reciprocal Agreement dated 19-4-1985 as Item No. 69, Appendix-II of Part A. Earlier the erstwhile permit holder preferred W.P. No. 13958 of 1992 against the proceedings of the respondent in R. No. 44015/E2/84, dated 12-8-1992 directing the payment of Rs. 49,664 as Motor Vehicle Tax due to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sowmini Ramesh and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR25(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions for the asst. yr. 1979-80 in the case of the two assessees 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 right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under s. 80L even while agreeing with the view taken by the Department that the income computed in the assessee's case will be liable to tax under s. 164(1) treating such income as the total income of an 'AOP' 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case having regard to the entire scheme of the IT Act, the Tribunal was justified in adopting dual status, viz., as an 'individual' for the purpose of determination of the total income and as an AOP for the purpose of levy of tax under s. 164(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessees are trusts assessed in the status of 'AOP' by the ITO. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Krishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR557(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions, for the opinion of this court, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's finding that the bonus of Rs. 1,50,000 earned by the assessee on the sale of the prize winning raffle ticket, cannot be assessed as the income from business for the assessment year 1978-79 is correct in law ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's further finding that the bonus receipt of Rs. 1,50,000 would also partake of the character of winnings from lottery and be assessable under Section 2(24)(ix) with attendant relief under Section 80TT is correct in law and reasonable view to take on the facts obtaining in this case ?' 2. The assessee is an accredited agent for selling Tamil Nadu raffle tickets for Sivakasi, governed by the agreement, dated October 12, 1976, under the Tamil N...
Tag this Judgment!Vellakoil Sarvodaya Sangham Vs. Jayabalan and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC616
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. This revision was sought to be admitted by the second witness by name Dhandapani, who is the Secretary of Vellakoil Sarvodaya Sangham against the two accused who are employees of the said Sangam, to challenge the judgment rendered in C.C. No. 148 of 1990 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, Periyar District on 9.12.1994 acquitting the second accused for the offences under Sections 409 and 477A of Indian Penal Code on two counts.2. Since the second accused denied his complicity in toto for the offences above referred when questioned by the court below after furnishing all the necessary copies of the documents relied on by the prosecution, the trial court commenced the examination of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution numbering 11 as P.Ws. l to 11. Of the 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.5 to 11 were treated as hostile as they had not supported the prosecution case, however, the core of the evidence given by P.Ws.1,2,3 & 4 clinchingl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »