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 Income Tax Vs. Madhavdas Lalchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: [1998]230ITR877(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the order of this Court dt. 6th April, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 187(2) of the IT Act, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that consequent to the death of one of the partners, on 17th July, 1972, there was dissolution of the old firm and hence two separate assessments have to be made one for the period up to 17th July, 1972, and the other for the subsequent period for the asst. yr. 1973-74 ?' 2. The point for consideration is, having regard to the provisions of s. 187(2) of the IT Act, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that consequent to the death of one of the partners on 17th July, 1972, there was dissolution of the old firm and hence two separate assessments have to be made one for the period up to 17th July, 1972, and the other fo...
K. Krishnaveni Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR28(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the accountable persons the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 64(1) of the ED Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act : (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in determining the principal value of the house at 25, Damodaran Street, Madras after deducting of the liability on the life insurance policies and thus allowing exemption on Rs. 29,137 only instead of Rs. 70,000 (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in not allowing the liability of Rs. 40,863 which is secured on life insurance policies and house property and treating the entire liability as secured on the house 2. The deceased, Shri Samraj, died on 25th August, 1979. He owned a property at Damodaran Street, Madras-10, which was used for residential purpose. The value of this property was adopted at Rs. 70,000 and there was no dispute ...
Shanmugham and Others Vs. Perumal Naicker and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad178
1. This Appeal is by defendants 2 to 4 and 10 in O.S. No. 648, of 1986, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Pondi-cherry. Reference to the parties in this Second appeal will be as per the array in the suit, for the sake of convenience.2. Plaintiff filed the above suit for the following reliefs :--'(a) Declare that the auction sale purported to have been held as per auction judgment dated 4-1-1972 in public auction suit No. 10/70 on the file of Principle Sub Court, Pondicherry is null and void and incapable of creating any interest in favour of the said auction purchaser referred to therein;(b) Pass a preliminary decree for redemption of the mortgage dated .... and record discharge of the said mortgage and the title of the plaintiff being free of discharge;(c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property or in the alternative for possession of the suit property in the event of this Ho...
A. Sivanesan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ598
ORDER1. These two petitions have been filed to set aside the judgment dated 26-4-1996 in C.A. nos. 795 and 796 of 1987 passed by this Court and rehear the appeals. 2. In the affidavits filed by the petitioner, the contents which are common are as follows : The petitioner was the Court's accused in C.C. Nos. 79 and 80 of 1986 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, filed by the Drug Inspector under Section 18-A(i) read with 27(d) of the Druge and Cosmetics Act, in which he and other accused were acquitted, that now he comes to know that appeals were filed by the complainant before this Court in C.A. Nos. 795 and 796 of 1987 for which he did not receive any notice, that though the other accused, who received the notices, engaged a counsel to appear for them in this Court, some how, he did not appear and therefore, this Court appointed an amicus curiae namely Mr. E. J. Ayyappan, Advocate, and hearing his arguments, this Court convicted all the accused under Section 27(d) of ...
Tamilselvane Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: 1997CriLJ2094
ORDER1. In Sessions Case No. 52 of 1990, on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, the petitioner Tamilselvant was charged and tried for the offences under Sections 452 and 307, I.P.C. Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months, under each count, directing the sentences to run concurrently. The petitioner, challenging this conviction and sentence filed an appeal in C.A. No. 32 of 1991, on the file of principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, who ultimately by his Judgment dated 8-1-1992, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and confirmed the conviction for the offences under Sections 452 and 307, I.P.C. and modified the sentence of R.I. for three years into one of R.I. for one year, while confirming the fine imposed by the trial Court. Hence this revision.2. The prosecution ca...
R. Balasubramanian Vs. S. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ709Mad
K.A. Swami, C.J. 1. Vacancy in the post of Headmaster arose in Sokkalal Higher Secondary School, Mukkudal, Tirunelveli Kattabomman District, which is an aided school. Therefore, it is governed by the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). At certain point of time, there was a controversy as to whether the Rules did apply to the aided schools regarding recruitment. This was made clear by the State Government by issuance of G.O.Ms. No. 720 Education, dated April 28, 1991. That Government Order also raised a controversy and the matter was to be settled by the Full Bench of this Court in The Saliar Mahajana Hr. Sec. School v. The Joint Director of Schools (Hr. Sec.) etc., 1995 WLR 277 in which it was held that the Rules did apply to the private aided schools. Therefore, the vacancy in the post of Headmaster was to be filled up as per Rule 15(4) of the Rules. ...
E. Vannachi Alias Chellammal and anr. Vs. Chelliah Kone and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC224; (1996)IIMLJ373
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The petitioners obtained a decree in a suit for partition and also got a final decree. The final decree was challenged in A.S.No.694 of 1982 in this Court. By consent, an amount of owelty was fixed and a judgment was rendered on the basis of consent on 9.10.1991. In spite of the judgment being one by consent, the defendants filed Letters Patent Appeal. There was a long delay in representation of the papers viz., 972 days. The Court, while condoning the delay, rejected the appeal on the ground that the owelty was increased with the consent of both parties and the appeal was not sustainable. That order was passed on 31.1.1995. The plaintiffs had deposited the owelty amount on 2.11.1995, A Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner has to construct a wall to demarcate the property allotted to the shares of the parties. At that stage, Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1995 was passed and a question was raised as to whether the Subordinate Judge could continue the proceedings ...
Diamond Sea Foods Exports Vs. A.M. Nicholas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC265; (1997)IMLJ48
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. 1. Decree-holder in O.S.No. 77 of 1983, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, is the revision petitioner.2. Petitioner herein obtained a decree in the above suit on 29.7.1989. In the suit filed by the petitioner, it wanted relief in respect of various items. Item No. 1 related to the ownership of Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. TN.T.9744. In respect of that car, the petitioner herein was declared as the owner, and the respondent herein was directed to surrender possession of the same. Against that portion of the decree which went against the petitioner, the matter is pending in appeal before this Court. Challenging the ownership of the vehicle as declared by the Trial Court, respondent has not filed any appeal.3. Respondent herein filed another suit as O.S. No. 106 of 1987, on the basis of an alleged agreement dated 31.8.1982. That suit was one for recovery of a sum of nearly Rs. 2,25,000. A decree was granted to the respondent herein on 5.2.1991....
S.M. Mohammed Mohideen and anr. Vs. P.M. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC660
ORDERSathasivam, J.1. Defendants in O.S.No. 467 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Nagapattinam, are the appellants in the above second appeal. The respondent herein, plaintiff/filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs .4,613-63 towards balance of business transaction.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder. The plaintiff was doing paddy business at Thanjavur Vijayapuram. The defendants in the course of usual business. Used to purchase paddy from the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 are partners of the first plaintiff firm. As per the transaction from 16.10.1978 to 2.12.78 the defendants have to pay a sum of Rs. 3,957.50. As per the business terms, they are entitled 12 per cent for the said amount. The paddy bags in the said transaction were loaded at Vijayapuram as requested by the defendants. Since the defendants failed to pay the balance amount. The plaintiff made several attempts for early payment and went to the defendants' place at Alangudi. As requested ...
R. Lakshmipathy Vs. Madras Gymkhana Club, by Its President
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC77; (1996)IIMLJ573
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. 1. This C.M.A. is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 8572 of 1995 (petitioner in I.A.No. 17184 of 1995), pending before the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The suit was originally filed before this Court and numbered as C.S.No. 1756 of 1995, but in view of amendment regarding jurisdiction of courts, the same was transferred to the City Civil Court, Madras.2. The suit filed by plaintiff is to declare Rule XI(f) of the Rules and Bye-laws of the Madras Gymkhana Club to the effect that 'In any event, no reinstatement will be permissible before the expiry of six months from the date of such posted member settling his outstandings' as contrary to law, not valid and binding on the plaintiff, and also for a declaration that the letter dated 24.10.1995 of the said Club addressed to plaintiff is illegal, contrary to Rules, not valid and binding on the plaintiff, and for a consequential injunction directing the defendant to restore the membership of the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »