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.
income Tax Officer and anr. Vs. Dinesh K. Shah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)138CTR(Mad)297
ORDERA. R. LAKSHMANAN, J. :The ITO, Headquarters, TDS, and the ITO, Salaries Circle, Madras, have preferred three complaints before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences I) Madras-8, against the respondents herein under ss. 276B and 276B r/w s. 278B of the IT 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 s. 194A of the Act. The 1st respondent is the firm and the 2nd respondent is the partner of the 1st respondent firm.2. The 1st respondent-company in EOCC Nos. 232 to 360 of 1987 (Crl. R. C. No. 417 of 1987) furnished its return of income, which was signed by the 2nd respondent, in the form of trading, P&L; a/c and balance sheet for the accounting year 30th Sept., 1982 (asst. yr. 1983-84) on 30th Dec., 1985. In the statement accompanying the return, the firm claims to have paid interest to the extent of Rs. 6,64,565-98 to various parties. Of these, there were ...
V. Sankaran Vs. the Joint Director of School (Secondary) Education and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ1
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 5th February, 1996 passed by the learned single judge, dismissing W.P. No. 3738 of 1986, in which the petitioner had sought for quashing the records in Mu.Mu.G. No. 73562/G7/85 dated 7.1.1986 passed by the 1st respondent. That was an order in an appeal preferred against the order imposing the punishment of withholding 3 increments with cumulative effect by the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent in the appeal, upheld the order of the 2nd respondent, however reduced the penalty by withholding one increment, without cumulative effect. However, learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Appellate Authority has considered the case and has been liberal in reducing the penalty.2. Before us, Shri Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has urged only one contention, viz., that the School Committee consisted of the Headmaster as per the provisions contained in Section 15 of ...
Madras Dock Labour Board Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)ILLJ1021Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition is for a mandamus for a direction to the second respondent relating to the communication bearing No. 51-36450-78 dated November 21, 1986 and to forbear the second respondent from enforcing the provision of the Employees' State Insurance Act to the establishment of the petitioner as it is covered under G.O.Ms. No. 1088 dated December 22, 1987 of the first respondent.2. The petitioner is the Chairman of the Madras Port Clearing and Forwarding Labour (Regulation of Employment) Scheme. As per the tripartite agreement during February, 1972 between the Madras Customs Clearing & Shipping Agents Association, the Madras Port & Dock Workers' Congress, Madras Port and Dock Workers Progressive Union and the Madras Harbour Workers union, the workers engaged by the members of the petitioner were brought under decasualisation scheme called the Madras Port clearing and forwarding Labour (Regulation of Employment) Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'The Scheme'). The Scheme c...
Ponnusamy and anr. Vs. R. Sugumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC464
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. This revision is by the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 118 of 1985, on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Manapparai.2. In execution of the money decree, the property of the judgment-debtor was brought to sale and the same was sold in court auction on 23.12.1987. An application to set aside the sale was filed on 22.2.1988 under Older 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. Along with the application, a lodgment schedule was also filed to deposit the entire amount and the poundage, but the same could not be deposited on account of boycott of courts by advocates, and the amount was deposited the next day, i.e., 23.2.1988. Taking into consideration the boycott of Courts by Advocates, the executing Court held that since the entire amount with commission had been deposited, the sale was liable to be set aside.3. The matter was taken before the lower appellate Court in C.M.A.No.79 of 1988, on the file of District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The lower appellate Court also found that the ...
Muniammal Vs. Vadamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC421; (1997)IMLJ393
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Since respondent entered appearance by filing caveat, by consent, the revision was heard on merits. This Revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.208 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif's Court Gingee, to declare that the licence granted to the first defendant by defendants 2 to 7 to run a rice milling industry is invalid and to restrain the first defendant from running any such industry by a permanent prohibitory injunction.2. It is the case of the plaintiff, petitioner herein, that he is running a rice mill from 21-1-1993 and that he has taken electric connection for the said purpose. He also says that even before 21.1.1993, he has been conducting the rice mill and the electric connection was granted to him originally on 28.5.1991. It is said that for running a rice mill, certain regulations are provided, one of which is that no licence should be granted for a running a rice mill within a distance of 5 kms. After the expiry of the period, he appl...
Seeni Ammal Vs. Veerayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC360
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No. 1249 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, is the appellant in the above appeal. She filed the said suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale.2. The case of the plaintiff as seen from the plaint are briefly narrated hereunder:The suit property is a wet land of an extent of 27 cents, belongs to the defendant. She agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff for a price of Rs. 24.300 The agreement was reduced to writing and signed by the contracting parties. It is dated 5.10.1979 and on the date of the agreement Rs. 8000 was paid as advance. It is further averred that the agreement stipulates that the sale was to be completed within a period of about three months. Again it was extended upto 15th June, 1980. Though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, the defendant was evading. So. the plaintiff sent two letters calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed on receipt of th...
R. Nallayan Vs. Chinna Irusan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: 1997ACJ1137; (1997)1MLJ600
C.V. Govardhan, J.1. The opposite party before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Salem, in W.C. No. 342 of 1992 has preferred this appeal aggrieved over the award passed by the Commissioner granting a sum of Rs. 27,625/- payable by the opposite party to the applicant.2. The applicant's case is that he was a worker in the sugar-cane crusher of the opposite party and on 24.6.1992, his left hand fingers were caught inside the crusher and four fingers except thumb were crushed resulting in a permanent disablement and that he was receiving wages of Rs. 30/- per day and has prayed for compensation.3. The opposite party in his counter statement has contended that he was a Government employee working as a teacher in the Panchayat Union Elementary School at Thippampatty village, that he does not own any crusher and the applicant was not an employee under him and hence he is not liable to pay any compensation.4. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, who held an enquiry, gave a ...
Poongavanam Ammal and anr. Vs. Appaswamy Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ250
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 486 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Gingee, are the appellants in the above appeal. They filed the said suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.2. The case of the plaintiffs as found in the plaint is briefly mentioned hereunder:The second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff's husband is one Govindaraja Rounder. He died in or about 1961. The second plaintiff is the only issue of the said Gbvindaraja Kounder and the first plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. They are sons of one Dhanapal Gounder. The third defendant is the son of the second defendant. The fourth defendant is the wife of one Jagadesa Kounder, who is another brother of defendants 1 and 2. Jagadeesa Kounder died about 5 years ago. The suit properties originally belonged to Govindaraja Kounder, husband of first plaintiff. The first item of the suit property originally belonged to Murugesa Kounder and from him on...
Nilgiri District Janatha Party Represented by Its Secretary Vs. A. Rah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ255
Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 411 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Court, Nilgiris at Ootacamund is the appellant in the above second appeal. The said plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any of the party men of Indira Congress or anybody claiming through the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises by the plaintiff or its agents.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated as follows: The suit premises is situate at Lower Bazaar Road commonly known as Kamaraj Bhavan is being used as the office premises of the plaintiff party and the Secretary of the plaintiff party is having control of the said premises. The records of the plaintiff party, both at the District level and the Town level are kept in the said premises. The plaintiff has been in effective possession and enjoyment of the said premises eversince the Janatha Party was formed. The defendants, who are the members of Indira Con...
N. Chockayya Pillai, Trustee of Pudukkadai Chatram Vs. R. Subramania P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ26
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The subject matter of the dispute in the writ petition relates to a punja land in R.S. 95/6 of an extent of 18 cents in Kuruvadi village, Nannilum taluk, Thanjavur district. The writ petitioner has filed an application before the second respondent under Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Record of Tenancy Rights Act') to delete the name of the first respondent from the record of the tenancy rights for the said village, maintained in the office of the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the land in question is a dry land used only for tethering cattle and for storage of hay-rick, and the land was never used for cultivation or horticulture and hence, the land does not fall within the definition of the lands under Section 2(4) of the Record of Tenancy Rights Act. The entry in the record of tenancy rights found in favour of the first respondent to the effect that he was a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »