Chennai Court August 1996 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. P.S.R. Senbagamurthy Nadar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad96
1. The defendants' in O.S. 153 of 1976 on the file of Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai are the appellants in the above appeal. The respondents, plaintiffs in the said suit filed the same for declaration and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :-- The suit temple has been managed out of the funds contributed by the regular wor-shippers belonging to the Nadar community. The said temple was never thrown open to any other community for worship. Poojaries are appointed from other community to perform pooja. The Nadar Grocery Merchants of Sivakasi were responsible for upkeep, progress and maintenance of the temple. The suit temple is being managed by the trustees appointed by the Sivakasi Grocery Merchants residing at Sivakasi belonging to Sivakasi Hindu Nadars. The expenses of the temple arc met by donations and contributions made by Grocery Merchants from their Manamai funds. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has uniformly accepted an...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Smt. Kannammal Educational Trust and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Mad283
ORDERK. A. Swami, CJ.1. W. A. Nos. 1119 and 1140 of 1995 are preferred by the State Government and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu respectively against the order dated 31-3-1995 passed by the learned single Judge, allowing W.P. No. 17226 of 1994. The petitioner in the writ petition has sought for quashing the proceedings of the University of Madras in No. A.1I/ MVS/ Dr. M.G.R. Engg. Coll/94-95/1596 dated 22nd September, 1994 and to direct the said University to consider can grant affiliation to the First year Law Course of the 5 year B. L. Degree Course stated by the petitioner Trust, in the name and style of 'Tamil Nadu Law College' Madras, for the academic year 1994-95 onwards.2. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashing the said proceeding of the University of Madras and issued a direction in the following terms:--'No other provision of the Madras Uni-versity Act, 1923 was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent University, ...
Tag this Judgment!Poolar Vs. Gomathi Moopanar and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC539
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Third defendant in O.S.No.94 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Sankarankoil, is the appellant in the above civil miscellaneous appeal. The first respondent herein, plaintiff in the said suit filed the same for declaration and permanent injunction. Apart from examining himself as P.W.I, the plaintiff has examined 3 more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4. He has also marked Exs. A1 to A23. On the other hand, the third defendant was examined as D.W.I and the second defendant was examined as D.W.2. They have also marked Exs.B1 to B6 in support of their defence, The Commissioner's report and sketch were marked as Exs.C1 to C3. After framing necessary issues and in the light of the evidence on record, the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit with costs.2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No.100 of 1986 before the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi. The lower appellate court after framing necessary points for considerat...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugham Alias Shanmugha Sivanandam Vs. Dhandayuthapani Pillai (Died ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ65
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 149 of 1979, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Thiruvaiyaru, is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The material facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing of this second appeal may be summarised as follows:Plaint A Schedule property originally belonged to Natesa Pillai, who is the father of the plaintiff and first defendant. Apart from these two sons, Natesa Pillai and two other sons also viz., Subramaniam and Srinivasan. Subramaniam died unmarried and issue-less in 1947 and Srinivasan also died in 1970. At the time of his death, Natesa Pillai left his widow Bapu Animal. She also died in the year 1966.3. In the year 1943, to meet the marriage expenses of the first defendant and also to discharge certain debts, a mortgage was executed for Rs. 400. Thereafter, on 15.1.1958, another mortgage was executed by all the brothers and also the widow for Rs. 1,000 in favour of one Abdul Hameed with a direction to redeem the earl...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Muthu Gounder (Died) and ors. Vs. Kalianna Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ615
S.S. Subramani, J.1. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 11 of 1994 and O.S. No. 131 of 1983 is the appellant in this case. He is the 2nd respondent in I.A. No. 284 of 1982 in O.S. No. 118 of 1956 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. The material facts are as necessary for the proper disposal of the revision and appeals are as follows:One Marappa Gounder owned many properties and he died leaving behind four sons namely Muthu Gounder, Kaliyanna Gounder, Chenniappa Gounder and Perumal Gounder alias M.P. Swamy. They could not adjust themselves and Chenniappa Gounder filed O.S. No. 118 of 1956 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Erode. A preliminary decree for partition was passed whereby Chenniappa Gounder was allotted 1/4th share. He filed an application for passing of a Final decree in the case. The commission was issued to file a report and plan. Certain suggestions were made regarding allotment. It is seen that there was no definite finding regarding allotment of plaint schedu...
Tag this Judgment!Thangamani Ammal and ors. Vs. Ponnusamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ558
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. No. 1240 of1l986 arises from A.S. No. 252 of 1983 on the file of District judge, Trichy which arose from the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 71 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Trichy. Second Appeal No. 1058 of 1985 arises from O.S. No. 503 of 1981 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Trichy which gave rise to an appeal viz., A.S. No. 174 of 1983 of District Judge, Trichy. There is also another suit which is of small cause in nature viz., S.C. No. 436 of 1979. All the above three suits were tried together and common judgment was pronounced on 28.2.1983. Against this Small Cause Suit No. 436 of 1979, there was a revision before the District Court as C.R.P. No. 9 of 1984. In all the three suits a common question arose between the parties who are the same. The plaintiff sought recovery of damages from the defendants, on the allegation that he is cultivating the land against the terms of the lease agreement. The material averments for institutin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR697(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court in TCP No. 364 of 1981, dt. 19th April, 1982, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the interest on debentures cannot be treated as interest on loans and advances and that, therefore, it is outside the purview of the Interest-tax Act, 1974? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the debentures issued by the Co-operative Bank could be regarded as one issued by a company established under a State or Provincial Act and, therefore, the interest is assessable under interest on securities, which is outside the purview of interest for levy of interest-tax under Inter...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR83(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In compliance with the directions of this Court given in TCP Nos. 26 and 27 of 1980, dt. 5th January, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions for the opinion of this Court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Explanation to r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,70,000 for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 representing dividends declared should not be deducted from the capital for the purpose of surtax assessments 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the general reserves as on the first day of the previous year should not be reduced by the amount of dividend declared at a future date at the general body meeting for the purpose of computing the capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?' Since the figure...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.B. Raj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR874(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the order of this court dated February 23, 1981, in T.C.P. Nos. 282 and 283 of 1980, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) 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 pension was earned in Malaysia and the receipt of the said pension was only in the nature of remittance to India and accordingly the inclusion of the said pension amount in the total income of the assessee was not correct and, therefore, it was to be excluded from the total income of the assessee ?' 2. The point for consideration is when the assessee earned pension in Malaysia and received the same in India, whether such pension amount is includible in the total income of the assessee 3. The Tribunal held that the pension earned in Malaysia and received at India is not taxable in India. While coming to this conclusion, the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Neo Intex Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Cus., Tuticorin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1996
Reported in: 1996(88)ELT343(Mad)
ORDER1. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release 6 Nos.of autocones lying under the custody of Customs Department at Tuticorin Port confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Order-in-original dated 17-2-1996 and 19-2-1996 in Order Nos.2 & 3 of 1996 by implementing the order of the Tribunal dated 18-5-1996 in Order No.804 of 1996 and pass such further orders. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows :-The petitioner company is in export-oriented unit engaged in the manufacture of textile cotton yarn for exports. For the expansion of the unit, petitioner-company imported autocones numbering 6 units covered by two bills of entry, viz., Bill of Entry bearing No.75 dated 8-11-1995 for 4 nos. autocones and Bill of Entry No. 76, dated 8-11-1995 for 2 nos. autocones. The petitioner company had been penalised for th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »