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. Thudialur Co-operative Agricultural Ser ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)362
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In compliance with the direction given by this Court dt. 14th February, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the order under S. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1975-76 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of S. 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee would be entitled to the exemption on the income arising out of the sale of the articles such as manure, pesticides and cattle feed ?'2. The assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the activity of rendering agricultural services to its members. As part of the services, the assessee distributes manure mixture under the name Ashok Mark. The assessee was also supplying cattle-feed. Out of the total income of Rs. 2,59,997 returned by the assessee for...
Sunil Kumar Vs. Ushadevi Radhakrishna Pathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR245(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. When the writ appeal came up before us on the earlier occasion, it was represented that it will be better, if the main writ petitions are taken up and disposed of, as the writ appeal had arisen out of an interlocutory order made in WMP No. 6793 of 1995 in WP No. 4125 of 1995. Hence, we directed the writ appeal and the writ petitions posted together for hearing and now, we have heard counsel on both the sides in these petitions. 2. There was a partnership firm by name Suganchand and Co. which had three partners Radha Bai, Brij Mohan and Sunil Kumar. Radha Bai died on 21st September, 1987, leaving behind her, four daughters and three sons. The daughters are the petitioners in WP No. 4125 of 1995 and the sons are respondents Nos. 3 to 5 therein. On 8th March, 1993, Brij Mohan died leaving behind him, his wife, Sakuntala Devi, who is the petitioner in WP No. 4609 of 1995. The surviving partner Sunil Kumar, who was continuing the business, entered into an agreement on 1st D...
M.R. Sathyamurthy and anr. Vs. University of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1172Mad
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. W.P.No. 3562 of 1987 is to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned resolution of the Syndicate passed in its Special Meeting held on July 5, 1982 at 11.00 a.m. with its annexure and quash the same in so far as it relates to the approval of selection of Thiru M. Ramaswamy, the second respondent herein, as Reader in the Department of Management studies and to direct the first respondent to select and appoint the petitioner as reader in the Department of Management Studies on the basis of his performance in the interview held in 1982.2. W.P.No. 3569 of 1987 is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned resolution of the Syndicate passed in its Special Meeting held on July 5, 1982 at 11.00 a.m. The prayer in this writ petition is almost identical as to that of W.P.No. 3562 of 1987. The petitioner herein is another ...
Fraser and Ross Associates, Chartered Accounts and ors. Vs. P.S. Swami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC436
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. This appeal is against an order passed by the learned Judge of this Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act appointing arbitrators for deciding the disputes raised by the plaintiff as set out in the plaint. The defendants in the suit have preferred this appeal, according to learned counsel for the appellants, the affidavit filed in support of the application, which is really registered as a suit, according to the practice in this Court, does not disclose what exactly is the dispute between the parties. He has taken us through the relevant paragraphs in the affidavit and contended that the affidavit has not set out the disputes between the parties.2. He has invited our attention to several judgments of the other High Courts and also an observation made by the Supreme Court and contended that setting out the dispute clearly in the affidavit filed in support of an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is absolutely essential.3. The learned Judge ...
Manickam Chettiar Vs. Ramanatha Devar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC373; (1996)IIMLJ398
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The petitioner in both the civil revision petitions is the degree holder in C.S. No. 380 and 381 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Thiruthuraipoondi. The respondent in both the revisions is the Judgment-debtor in the suits.2. The short facts are, in both the suits, preliminary decree was passed on 22.11.1974. The petitioners decree-holder filed Execution petitions for realising the decree amount together with interest by sale of the immovable property mentioned in the execution petitioners. According to the petitioner, he bona fidely believed that Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturist (Temporary Relief) Act X of 1975 would operate as a bar to him execution petitions and hence he filed two execution petitions on 6.2.90 and 15.2.90 respectively. The time during which Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Act X of 1975 operated as a bar shall be excluded as per Section 5 of the said Act. The Court below held that the Execution Petitions are out of...
D. Krishnamoorthi Vs. Elanjiam Alias Chandra and Three ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC328
ORDERN. Arumugham, J. 1. The challenge involved in this revision pertains to the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Chidambaram in I.A.No. 1653 of 1995 in O.S.No. 1227 of 1988 dated 29.11.1995 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the code of Civil Procedure is to implead the fourth respondent herein. On ordering notice of motion, the parties made their appearance through the Bar. With the consent, I have heard both sides in the main revision itself and disposed of the same by delivering this order.2. It is stated that the suit properties belonged to the respondents 1 to 3 herein which were hypothecated by them by means of an usufructuary mortgage in favour of the revision petitioner herein and accordingly, he was put in possession of the same. Further, it appears that subsequently, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a suit for redemption in O.S.No. 1227 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Chidambaram, which is being resisted by the defendant. Pending disposal of the suit, ...
K. Radhakrishnan Vs. Thirumani Asphalts and Felts Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas31(Mad)
Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The petitioner has sought a declaration that he has not vacated the office of the director of the respondent company. The petitioner's case is that he has not absented himself from three consecutive meetings of the board of directors or of all meetings of the board of directors for a continuous period of three months as no notice of the meetings was given to the petitioner. The removal of the petitioner from his office as director by the respondent company on the ground of absence from three consecutive meetings of the board under section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act is, therefore, said to be illegal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court as the company court under section 10 read with section 2(11) of the Companies Act is the only court competent to grant the relief as the registered office of the company is within the jurisdiction of this court. The action of the respondent company in depriving the petitioner of his status as director ...
K. Radhakrishnan Vs. Thirumani Asphalts and Felts (P) Ltd. and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC682
ORDER1. The petitioner has sought a declaration that he has not vacated the office of the director of the respondent company. The petitioner's case is that he has not absented himself from three consecutive meetings of the Board of directors or of all meetings of the Board of directors for a continuous period of three months as no notice of the meetings was given to the petitioner. The removal of the petitioner from his office as director by the respondent company on the ground of absence from three consecutive meetings of the board under section. 283(l)(g) of the Companies Act is, therefore, said to be illegal.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the court as the Company Court under section 10 read with section 2(11) of the Companies Act is the only court competent to grant the relief as the registered office of the company is within the jurisdiction of this court. The action of the respondent company in depriving the petitioner of his status as director is, according ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dhun D. Dalal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: [1998]233ITR143(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the ITO in not taking the rent for the period 1st November, 1975 to 30th November, 1976 is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and that the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of S. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's view that the assessee is entitled to vacancy allowance when the property was not actually let out and was not in the occupation of the tenant is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is an individual deriving income from house property. While computing the assessment for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 and 1977-78, the ITO accepted the income from house proper...
C. Vijaya Lakshmi and anr. Vs. N. Siva Bagiyam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ799; 1996(2)CTC136
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 1183 of 1989 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Salem are the appellants in the above appeal. The appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased Thilagavathy. In the accident that took place on 14.3.89 due to the negligence of the driver of the first respondent herein, the claimant's daughter sustained grievous injuries and after taking treatment for nearly nine days, she succumbed to the injuries on 23.3.89. According to the claimants, the deceased was their first daughter and she was a doctor, they are not having a son, and at the time of the accident, the deceased was contributing a sum of Rs. 2000 to the claimants. After claiming under various heads, altogether they prayed for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for the death of their first daughter.2. The Tribunal, on the basis of the available evidence passed an award for Rs. 1, 55,000 with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »