Chennai Court August 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.
P. Mariamisiria Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ241
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 6.8.1996 dismissing Writ Petition No. 5435 of 1996, in which the petitioner/appellant has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the 5th respondent dated 10.4.1996 and also to direct respondents 5 and 6 to recognise the petitioner as the Correspondent of both the middle and high schools run by K.A.M.P. Meerania Muslim Educational Society, Singampathu, Kalakad.2. It is surprising to note that the petitioner is fighting without making the educational society in question as a party to the writ proceedings. The educational institutions in question are run by the aforesaid educational society. It is the aforesaid educational society, which alone can appoint the correspondent of the school. In the absence of the educational society, the claim of the petitioner/appellant that she should be recognised as Correspondent of both middle and High Schools, cannot be considered.3. Th...
Canara Bank and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: [1998]91CompCas385(Mad)
N. Arumugham J.1. The suit against the defendant is to recover a sum of Rs. 3,66,830 with interest at 19.5 per cent. from the date of plaint with costs. 2. The brief facts of the case as gathered from the plaint are stated hereunder : 3. The first plaintiff is the nationalised banking institution which provided every financial assistance to the second plaintiff, a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of running a boat engaged in fishing in the sea. The defendant, incorporated under the General Insurance Act, is an insurance company in which, both the plaintiffs have taken an insurance policy for the fishing boat of the second plaintiff, which was named Sealark-I. Thus, the second plaintiff is the customer of the first plaintiff who availed of various loan facilities and thereby purchased the mechanised fishing boat by name Sealark, engaged in fishing off the east coast sea. The said vessel had been insured in order to protect the same with its interest and damage to the...
A. Sivasailam Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: [1997]228ITR322(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In accordance with the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 546 to 548, 556 and 557 of 1982, dt. 11th April, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, in the case of both the assessee as well as the Department, under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 : T. C. Nos. 864 to 869 of 1984. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the estate duty liability of Rs. 1,66,48,868 cannot be allowed as a deduction and the value of shares has to be only on basis of the 'book values' of assets/liabilities as indicated in the books of the valuation date? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in restricting the deduction of estate duty liability to Rs. 65,50,453 (only being the provisional demand) as against Rs. 1,66,48,868 being the estate duty finally determined as payable, in valuing the share of M/s Amalgamations Ltd.? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in restricting the deduction...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A. Kanagasabai Mudaliar (Deceased)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: [1998]232ITR810(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in this case and accordingly in canceling the penalty of Rs. 26,404/51,553 for the assessment year 1966-67/1971-72 ?' 2. The point for consideration is whether the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) in this case for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1971-72. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of R. Abdul Azeez v. CIT : [1981]128ITR547(KAR) , held that there was no jurisdiction on the part of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after amendment to levy penalty under section 271(1)(...
P. Amaravathy Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and 10 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC478
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.2. The petitioner is the unfortunate widow whose husband had died while in police custody. The petitioner is seeking in this writ petition a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to register a case against respondents 5 to 10 and hand over the investigation to CBI and also to direct the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs as and by way of compensation for the custodial death of her husband.3. The writ petition was filed on 14.6.1995. The petitioner's husband wad detained on 5.4.1995 at about 5.00 a.m. by a group of six persons claiming themselves to be police .constables. The petitioner's husband was taken to Theni to the office of the Narcotic Investigation Bureau, for conducting an enquiry. Even as the petitioner's husband was reluctant to accompany the said persons, he was assaulted and dragged to the police van. The petitioner's husband did not return till 10.00 a.m. on the next day....
Kannamaml Vs. Chinnaponnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC222
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J. 1. Defendant in O.S.No. 282 of 1981, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Ranipet is a appellant before this Court.2. Respondent herein filed the above suit for partition claiming one half share in the plaint items. Admittedly, the properly originally belonged to late Murugan, who died in January, 1980. Plaintiff, i.e., the respondent herein, is his second wife, and the appellant is his daughter through first wife. It is admitted that the first wife is dead. It is the case of the respondent that Murugan died intestate, and herself and the defendant are the only legal heirs entitled to one half each. It is said that her husband never executed any will or settlement deed, and therefore, she is entitled to one half right in the property. Before the institution of the suit, a notice was issued, calling upon the defendant to effect a partition. It was in reply to that notice, the appellant contended that her father, i.e., the acquirer has executed a will and settl...
S.M.B. Eswaran, Authorised Representative of the Management of East Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: (1996)2MLJ423
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. W.P. No. 10884 of 1987 is for quashing the order dated 21.7.1987 passed by the Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, in I.D. No. 43 of 1983.2. W.P. No. 6103 of 1988 is for certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court relating to the Award in I.D. No. 43 of 1983 dated 21.7.1987, and to direct the second respondent to reinstatement petitioner in service and to pay backwages and other benefits.3. In both the writ petitions, the award of the Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Madras-104 is under challenge.4. Petitioner in W.P. No. 6103 of 1988 is an employee of the second respondent, petitioner in W.P. No. 10884 of 1987. His case is that he joined the second respondent management in 1974. He formed an organisation called 'Thiruvarur Vitayapuram Varthaga Thozhialar Sangam' in 1979. He was selected as the Secretary of the Sangam in the year 1980. The employer called him several times and a...
A. Sivasailam Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Cwt V. A. Sivasailam).
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)371
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In accordance with the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 546 to 548, 556 and 557 of 1982, dt. 11th April, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court, in the case of both the assessee as well as the Department, under s. 27(3) of the WT Act, 1957 :T. C. Nos. 864 to 869 of 1984.'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the estate duty liability of Rs. 1,66,48,868 cannot be allowed as a deduction and the value of shares has to be only on basis of the book values of assets/liabilities as indicated in the books of the valuation date?2. Whether the Tribunal was right in restricting the deduction of estate duty liability to Rs. 65,50,453 (only being the provisional demand) as against Rs. 1,66,48,868 being the estate duty finally determined as payable, in valuing the share of M/s Amalgamations Ltd.?3. Whether the Tribunal was right in restricting the deduction to Rs. 3...
S. Seetharaman and Others Vs. Stick Fast Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: [1998]93CompCas507(Mad)
K.A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. This company petition was filed under sections 397, 398 and 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 and rule 88 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, (a) for the regulation of the conduct of the affairs of the company; (b) for the holding of a general body meeting to determine the management of the company; (c) for the administration of the loan given by the sixth respondent to the first respondent; (d) directing respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to pay the costs of this petition and for other reliefs, if any. 2. Stick Fast Chemicals Private Ltd was incorporated on October 18, 1985, under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The registered office of the company is situate at 1050, Neighbouring Scheme, Rajagopalapuram Post, Pudukottai. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 20,00,000 divided into 20,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The paid-up capital is Rs. 1,10,000. The objects for which the said company is established are (a) to carry on the business of manufacture...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Haji Md. Ghouse Saheb and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: [1999]240ITR920(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 for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act in respect of the service charges paid to the State Trading Corporation and premium paid to the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80 ?' 2. There are two points that arise for consideration in these tax cases (1) Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 35B with regard to service charges paid to the State Trading Corporation and (2) Whether the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B with regard to the premium paid to Export Credit Guarantee Corporation 3. In so far as th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »