Chennai Court July 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 Wealth-tax Vs. A.N. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: [1998]234ITR363(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. By these reference applications relating to assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, the Tribunal referred the following question of law, for the opinion of this court, under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the firm of A. N. Natarajan, which purchases cotton kappas and gets them ginned by outside agencies should be treated as an 'industrial undertaking' and accordingly the exemption contemplated under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act should be allowed in respect of the assessee's share of interest therein ?' 2. The point for consideration is whether the partnership firm should be treated as industrial undertaking so as to claim exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Wealth-tax Act out of the share income derived from a partnership firm, which i...
K. Karala Gounder and anr. Vs. K. Baskaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC658
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since the lower Court has not taken up the I.A.No. 203 of 1996 for disposal, especially, then an ex parte order of injunction has been granted. The petitioner, who is the respondent in the I.A. has filed counter and also filed a petition for vacating the injunction. The lower court, without taking up the matter, had adjourned the same from 28.6.1996 to 24.7.1996. Now, the counsel for the petitioner represents that on 24.7.1996 the ex parte order of injunction has been extended and the I.A. has been posted to 17.9.1996. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that whenever ex parte order of injunction has been granted, the lower court should earnestly try to dispose of the application within thirty days as per Order 39, Rule 3(A) of C.P.C. The adjournment of more than thirty days will amount to avoidance of the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Even in case of adjournm...
R. Srinivasan and anr. Vs. K.S. Muthu Mudaliar and Sons by Partner, K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ428
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased landlord B. Ramaswami Chettiar, who is the owner of the property in question. The 1st respondent is the tenant represented by its partner K.S. Muthu Mudaliar. Respondents 2 and 3 were brought on record when the appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority.2. The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the 1st respondent/ tenant under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also for additional accommodation for the business needs of the landlord's wife and son. The 1st respondent is a tenant in respect of Door No. 19-B, D.P.C. Lane, Bazaar Street, Salem Town. Both the authorities below have rejected the petition filed by the landlord. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision has been filed.3. In this Court, the petitioners have confined the...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ayyanarappan and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)394
THANIKKACHALAM, J.:At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' :-Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, while computing the profits under s. 41(2) for the asst. yr. 1978-79 the depreciation allowed to the firm prior to the reconstitution on 28th May, 1976 should also be taken into account?'2. The assessee is a firm. One of the partners died on 28th May, 1976 and immediately thereafter the firm was reconstituted. In the previous year ended 31st March, 1976 the assessee had transferred five assets in favour of four partners and a stranger. In computing the profits under s. 41(2) of the Act, the ITO took into account the depreciation deducted in the assessment made on the firm prior to the reconstitution also, in the view that the death of the partner led only to a change in the constitution and there was ng succession of one firm b...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vs. Karthikeyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1996
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)332
ORDERTHAWKKACHALAM, 1:At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following common question for the asst. yrs. 1980~81 and 1981-82 for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act':'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of r. 2A of IT Rules, 1962, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 10(13A) of the IT Act, in respect of the house rent allowance received by him?'2. The point for consideration is that having regard to the provisions of r. 2A of the IT Rules, 1962, the assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 10(13A) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the house rent allowance received by the assessee.3. The assessee is a Government servant and a member of the Indian Administrative Service. During the relevant period, he was functioning as the chairman of the State Planning Commission, Madras. He was in...
A.S.K. Rathnaswamy Nadar and Co., Madras Vs. Trustees of the Port Trus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad255
ORDERK. A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 24-12-1993 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P. No. 2397 of 1995 (sic) in which the validity of Circular No. 9; 85, dated 6-2-1985 (sic) issued by respondent was challenged.2. Learned single Judge has held that as the respondent had not undertaken to run the services to clear the goods, it was not responsible to take over the charge or agreed to handle the goods. Learned single Judge has stated in categorical terms, thus: --'No material was produced to show that the Port Trust, in the cases before me, have undertaken to take over the charge or agreed to handle the goods and provide services of this nature for delivery on landing for the discharge of the cargo,'3. Circular No. 9/85, dated 6-12-1985 (sic) is as follows:--Sub: Cargo -- Imports -- Landing of Logs Ex. Andaman Vessels -- Declaration of free days -- Amendment -- regarding- Further to this Office Circular Letters of even No. dated 31-7-198...
P.J. Gangadaran Vs. the Presiding Officer, Ii Additional Labour Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1234Mad
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by an employee of the second respondent herein challenging the award of the respondent No. I in I.D. No. 224 of 1984, dated June 10, 1985 in so far as it has declined to grant the relief to the petitioner herein.2. The main allegation in the affidavit filed in support of the main petition in I.D. No. 224 of 1984 is that there was no wilful slowing down of the production during the months of June, July, August, September and October, 1982. After the enquiry was conducted, the petitioner was found to be guilty of the charges. Hence, he was dismissed from service. It is also alleged that the production of the petitioner in October, 1982 was not far below the average production of the previous six months. It is also contended that there was no wilful go-slow.3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the management it is stated that the disciplinary action against the workman was taken after giving notice about the slowing down. On Se...
G. Anandam Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1198Mad; (1998)IIIMLJ664
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to call for the orders of the second respondent dated September 12, 1984 as confirmed by the first respondent in his proceedings dated May 9, 1986.2. The petitioner an employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has challenged the order of punishment viz., stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The petitioner was working as Accounts Officer/ Revenue/ MES North at Mount Road and that at the time of punishment he was employed in Salem Electricity System. OnDecember2, 1981 a memo was served, on him with reference to M/s. Romala Enterprises, 389 Tiruvottiyur High Road, Madras-19, whom he permitted to remit the arrears of Rs.35,987.50 in instalments towards current consumption charges. In the memo it was alleged that he prevented the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Tiruvottiyur (N. Krishnan) from disconnecting the lighting service connection of the said Romala Enterprises ...
Kamaraj theatre, Royakottai, Represented by Its Managing Partner - Lro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ603
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. When Writ Appeal No. 184 of 1996 came up for hearing, we considered it necessary to hear Writ Petition No. 16589 of 1995 and all other connected writ petitions. Accordingly, all the connected writ petitions are posted along with the writ appeal and we have heard both sides.2. In all these writ petitions, the validity of the amendment to Rule 14 as introduced by G.O.Ms. 1326, dated 6.9.1995 is challenged on the grounds that the amendment is not consistent or in conformity with the object mentioned in the preamble to the order, that the amendment is arbitrary and unreasonable and seriously affects the rights of the owners or proprietors of the permanent cinemas.3. G.O.Ms. 1326, dated 6.9.1995 substituted Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), Sub-rules (1) and (2) as existed before the substitution were as follows:14(1) (a) In areas other than pilgrim towns, tourist centres, municip...
Kunchithapatham Chettiar, Proprietor, Saibaba Oil Mills Vs. the Presid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ376
ORDERS.M. Abdul wahab, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the order of the first respondent herein in I.D. No. 127 of 1984 dated 24.6.1987.2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent whenever offered himself for work on a daily casual basis was engaged since 1977, when such work was available. Second respondent himself was running a country oil-crusher (Nattu Chekku) and subsequently doing business in sales of groundnut, gingelly seeds oh a commission basis and was also doing sale of coconuts. In December, 1982 the second respondnet obtained a sum of Rs. 15,000 from Khadi Board, Tanjore and installed a power driven oil-crusher. Thereupon on 28.10.1982 the second respondent approached the petitioner for a loan of Rs. 500, the petitioner refused to oblige. Thereupon on 28.10.1982, the second respondent alleged illegal termination on 14.10.1982 and claimed reinstatement. On 3.11.1982, letter was replied by the counsel for the respondent. Thereupon, second respondent raise...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »