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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. R.S. and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: [1999]240ITR921(Mad)
K. A. Thanikkachalam, J. 1. In pursuance of the direction given by this court in T.C.P. Nos. 170 and 171 of 1982, dated April 18, 1983, the Tribunal referred the following two questions for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax 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 commission of Rs. 1,20,311 paid to the State Trading Corporation as service charges would qualify for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission of Rs. 2,11,034 paid to local agents of foreign buyers and insurance premium of Rs. 54,318 paid to the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation would qualify for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. Question No. 1 relates to commission paid to State Trading Corporation on ...
Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. Vs. the Principal District Judge and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1229Mad
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J. 1. These writ petitions are for quashing the order dated August 26,1986 passed by the first respondent in C.M.A. Nos. 1 of 1986,2 of 1-986 and 4 of 1986. Pandian Roadways Corporation Limited is the petitioner in all the three writ petitions.2. The case of the petitioner is as per the standing order of the Corporation which has been certified by the appropriate authority under the Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, wherein the regularisation for grant of casual leave is provided. Standing order No .7 provides that ordinarily previous permission of the Head of the Department in the Establishment shall be obtained before such a leave is taken. The second respondents in the writ petitions were employed in the corporation. They presented applications to the traffic supervisor for casual leave. As per the standing orders, the employees are required to ascertain whether the leave has been granted or not before proceeding on leave. The Traffic Super...
J. Jayalalitha Vs. State, by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Acb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC371
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The petitioner has stated that C.B.I, has registered a case against her pursuant to the orders of the Central Government for an offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation that she received US S 3 lakhs under the Immunity Scheme of the Finance Ministry under Act 41 of 1991. It is further alleged that the criminal proceedings initiated against her are actuated by malice, intended to harm her reputation due to political vendetta.2. The respondent herein has categorically denied the registration of any case on the matter relating to the allegation referred to in para 2 of the petition and it is also stated that the respondent herein is not even enquiring on the matter relating to receipt of US S 3 lakhs by the petitioner under the Immunity Scheme of the Finance Ministry under Act 41 of 1991, so also denied the averments touching the mala fides, political vindictiveness, etc. During the course of the argumen...
Muralidharan Vs. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)ALT(Cri)738; 1997(1)CTC637
ORDERArumugham, J. 1. But for the disturbing features in the legal parlance caused by the lower subordinate judiciary, there would not have been any occasion to admit this revision in exercising the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The challenge before me in this revision pertains to the order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge - cum - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No. 315 of 1996 and S.C.No. 83 of 1995 dated 2.4.1996 refusing to refer the matter to the High Court under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to remit the whole case to the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore to follow the procedure laid down under Section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The matrix of the matter to be highlighted in brief is that in view of the previous enmity, the deceased - first accused, by name, Mahesh alias Maheswaran and Muralidharan, the petitioner herein are alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy ...
M. Gopal and anr. Vs. Sri Vetrivel Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC471; (1997)IIMLJ239
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J. 1. These two second appeals are preferred against the common judgment and decree passed in A.S. Nos. 148 and 188 of 1982 dated 18th January, 1983. Those appeals arose out of the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 1982 passed in O.S. No. 770 of 1981 by the District Munsif, Vellore.2. The plaintiff/respondent in both the appeals filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,712.50 being the principal with interest at 12% per annum. The first defendant in the suit subscribed two chits in Group No. 3C and Group No. 16 payable in 20 monthly instalments of Rs. 500 each. The payment of instalments commenced in April, 1975. He paid 10 instalments. He was declared as the successful bidder in the auction held on 1.1.1976. He executed the pro-note on 24.1.1976 for the remaining sum of Rs. 5,000 and paid the first instalment in February, 1976. Thereafter, the instalment fell due on 17.3.1976, but, he did not pay the second instalment nor did he pay the subsequ...
Subbiah Pannaiyar Vs. Shanmugavelayudham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ103
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 435 of 1976, on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Tuticorin, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by plaintiffs is one for declaration of title and recovery of possession.3. It is said that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to the father of the defendant. On the death of the defendant's father, his right devolved on his two sons, namely, Ramiah Pannaiyar and Subbiah Pannaiyar (defendant). He had also a daughter by name Poongani Ammal. The appellant (defendant) and his brother obtained release of the right of Poongani Ammal and, therefore, the appellant and his brother became the absolute owners of the property. A partition was effected between the defendant and Ramiah Pannaiyar and the plaint property was allotted to the share of Ramiah Pannaiyar. Defendant was given some other property. First plaintiff purchased the plaint property as a vacant site from Ramiah Pannaiyar as per sale deed dated 16.5.1974. After purchase, he put ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Dinesh K. Shah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: [1997]223ITR68(Mad)
A.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The Income-tax Officer, Headquarters, TDS, and the Income-tax Officer, Salaries Circle, Madras, have preferred three complaints before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I), Madras-8, against the respondents herein under Section 276B and Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for their failure to deduct income-tax at source from the interest amounts paid to various persons as per Section 194A of the Act. The first respondent is the firm and the second respondent is the partner of the first respondent-firm.2. The first respondent-company in E. O. C. C. Nos. 292 to 360 of 1987 (Criminal R. C. No. 417 of 1987) furnished its return of income, which was signed by the second respondent, in the form of trading, profit and loss account and balance-sheet for the accounting year ending September 30, 1982 (assessment year 1983-84), on December 30, 1985. In the statement accompanyin...
New Bank of India Officers Association Vs. New Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)IILLJ1242Mad
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for declaring the proviso to Regulation 19(1) and Regulation 1(2) of the New Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1982 as illegal and invalid in law and violative of Articles Hand 16 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner in his affidavit stated that ' petitioner- Association is an Union of All India New Bank of India (Officers') Association. It is a recognised and registered Union, and the sole collective bargaining agent of the officer employees of the first respondent-Bank in Tamil-nadu. The first respondent-Bank was nationalised under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. After the nationalisation of the first respondent-Bank by virtue of the powers vested with them under Section 19 of the said Act, the Board of Directors of the first respondent Bank, in consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Goverment, ha...
S.D. Somasundaram Vs. the Superintendent, Central Bureau of Investigat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC496
ORDERShivappa, J.1. The case of the prosecution is that one Advocate by name Vijayan was attacked by the accused persons inflicting grievous injuries on him, when he was leaving his house on 21.7.1994 to attend a case in the Supreme Court on 22.7.1994 against 69% reservation policy of the Tamil Nadu State Government. A case was registered for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 307, I.P.C. by the local police, later investigation was banded over to CB CID on 7.8.1994. On 18.8.1994, on an interlocutory application the Supreme Court ordered the CBI to take up the investigation and directed the Tamil Nadu State Police to hand over the case to CBI for further investigation.2. Challan has been filed by the CBI for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 449, 324, 326, 307 and 120B read with 149, I.P.C. on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, and has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused persons.3. According to the respondent, six witnesses have given statement confirmin...
Thangavelammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC550
ORDERJanarthanan, J.1. One Thangavelammal (Petitioner) is the detenue. The detenue, it is said, is a 'bootlegger'. Apart from the ground case, the occurrence relating to which is said to have happened on 14.12.1995, she had come to adverse notice in three other cases.2. The Collector and District Magistrate Kamarajar District, Virudhunagar, (2nd Respondent), in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, clamped upon the detenue, the impugned order of detention in his proceedings Cr.MP.No.24 of 1995 dated 29.12.1995 with a view to preventing her from indulging in any activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.3. Mrs. R. Subadradevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would press into service the following points for consideration:-(1) There was no independent consideration by the first respondent-Government, in confirming the impugned order of detention; and(2) There was utter non-applicati...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »