Chennai Court September 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.
Judit Victor Ignace and anr. Vs. Kothandaraman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC529; (1996)IIMLJ534
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.1017 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Pondicherry is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1427 of 1996. He has filed the said suit against the respondents herein seeking for a decree for injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit properties. Pending the suit, he filed an application I.A. No. 4634 of 1993 for the grant of interim injunction till the disposal of the suit on the ground that he is in possession of the suit property. The claim of the first respondent that he was a cultivating tenant had been negatived by the decree of the civil court and as such he cannot interfere with the physical possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the petitioner. This application was opposed by the respondents contending that the respondent was declared as cultivating tenant by the revenue authorities and by virtue of the order dated 10.11.93 in E.A. No. 1 of 1993 in PCTPA. No. 5 of 198...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. P. V. Shaik Mohammed Rowther and Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)396
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In pursuance of the directions given by this Court in TCP No. 229 of 1980, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 10,000 levied in the assessees case under s. 273(b) for the asst. yr. 1972-73 ?'2. The assessee M/s. K. P. V. Shaik Mohammed Rowther (P) Ltd., Madras, is a company carrying on business as shipping agents. For the asst. yr. 1972-73 (previous year ended on 30th June, 1971) it filed a return admitting an income of Rs. 1,54,550 on 9th February, 1973, and the assessment was finally completed on a total income of Rs. 1,99,870. On 15th March, 1972, the assessee had filed an estimate of advance tax estimating the tax payable at Rs. 66,625 (sic-tax) payable as per the estimate was paid on 24th May, 1972, by the assessee. As the assessee did not furnish an estimate of...
A.V.M. theatre, Represented by Its Licensees M.V. Gnanagurusamy and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ116
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. The petitioner A.V.M. Theatre, Andipatty, represented by its three licensees have filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in his proceedings G.O. (2D) No. 154, dated 8.7.1996 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition could be gathered from the affidavit filed by one of the licensees, M.V. Gnanaguruswamy. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, Home Cinemas Department, Tamil Nadu Government, in his proceedings G.O. (2D) No. 154, dated 8.7.1996 confirming the orders of the second and third respondents viz., the Joint Commissioner (Cinemas), Land Administration Department and the District Collector, Madurai rejecting to renew 'C Form licence of the petitioner cinema theatre on the ground ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A. U. Chandrasekharan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1996
Reported in: (1997)141CTR(Mad)177
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :In compliance with the order of this Court dt. 9th March, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following question, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the prize money of Rs. 1,00,000 could be assessed in the hands of the members as one unit in the status of Association of persons or individually in the hands of the members ?2. Shri A. U. Chandrasekaran and others are the employees of India Cements Ltd, Sankari, Salem District. They entered into on agreement on 17th February, 1977 as per which they agreed to jointly purchase lottery tickets of the Tamil Nadu Government for which the prize was declared on 28th February, 1977. They secured a prize of rupees One lakh for one of the tickets thus purchased, viz., ticket No. S. 647180. The abovesaid ten persons authorised Shri Chandrasekaran to collect the prize amount through the Punjab National Bank. The said Bank, after realising the...
Indian Commerce and Industries Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR335(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J. 1. These two writ petitions filed by the same petitioner raise the same question in respect of the two assessment years, namely, 1983-84 and 1984-85. W.P. No. 2073 of 1987 seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated December 15, 1986, and to direct the second respondent to grant relief to the petitioner under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1983-84. Similarly, W.P. No. 2072 of 1987 seeks to quash the order dated December 15, 1986, and to grant relief to the petitioner under section 80-O of the Act for the assessment year 1984-85. The common order dated December 15, 1986, is cryptic and is as follows : 'I am directed to refer to your petition dated November 26, 1986, personally presented by Shri R. S. Manian to the Member (Central Board of Direct Taxes) on your behalf on the above subject and to say that, as already explained to your representative, in view of the...
Umar Abdul Shakoor Sorathia Vs. Asstt. Director, N.C.B., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: 1997(95)ELT464(Mad)
ORDER1. An interesting substantial legal question, propagated by Mr. K. Asokan, learned Counsel, however, almost already settled, in seeking the admission of this revision, to canvass the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court (N.D.P.S. Act), Madras in C.C. No. 418 of 1995, dated 8-7-1996, is extracted hereunder : 'Is the Assistant Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zone, Madras competent to get permission from the Court under the N.D.P.S. Act for further investigation of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if so, whether the Special Court is competent to grant such permission ?' 2. On 10-4-1995 the Office of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Madras, is said to have received a fax message from the Drug Liaison Officer, Her Majesty's Customs & Excise, Bombay, regarding the seizure of 20,34,000 Mandrax tablets in the Kingdom of Swaziland and this consignment is said to have been sent from In...
Sampath Vs. Karthikeyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC758; (1997)IMLJ129
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The civil revision petitioner is the fourth defendant in the suit. The respondent herein is one of the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note dated 17.2.1990 executed by the defendants. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the first plaintiff died and his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5. The second plaintiff filed an application before the lower Court to call for the pay bill and the acquittance register for the year 1990 maintained in the Taluk Office, Cheyyar relating to the fourth defendant. The application was filed on the ground that the fourth defendant has denied the execution of the promissory note and in the written statement filed by him, he has stated that the promissory note was manipulated. The second plaintiff in the affidavit filed before the lower Court has stated that whereabouts of the attestors to the suit promi...
Devivanai Ammal and 12 ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: 1996(2)CTC483
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, in G.O.R. No. 125, Housing dated 8.5.1975 published on 11.6.1975 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in G.O. Ms. No. 980 Housing dated 7.6.1978 published on 9.6.1978 by quashing the said notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 99/1,99/2 and 9/2 of an total extent of 2.23 acres in Valasaravakkam village, Saidapet taluk.2. The subject matter of the land covered in the writ petition belongs to the writ petitioners. Government of Tamil Nadu by a notification dated 8.5.1975 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proposed to acquire lands of a large extent of 303.05 acres in Valasaravakkam village including the petitioners' land referred to above, for Karunanidhi Nagar Part-II Sc...
Suthanthiramurthy and ors. Vs. the Secretary to Government, Environmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1996
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ403
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The writ petition is for certiorarified mandamus for quashing the order of the second respondent in Ref. No. 12589/84/B1 dated 26.3.1985 and Ref. No. 12589/84/E dated 6.5.1986 and to direct the second respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion as superintendents on the basis of their seniority in the feeder category or length of their service.2. The case of the petitioners are as follows:- The petitioners were working as assistants in the service of the first respondents. Their services were lent to the second respondent corporation. The petitioners as well as the respondents 3 to 10 were temporarily promoted as assistants and junior accountants. After the said temporary promotion, the Board passed a resolution on 22.6.1982 to prescribe Account Test, Departmental Test etc., as a pre-requisite qualifications for the purpose of promotion as Assistants and Junior Accountants. Since the petitioners and respondents 3 to 10 were already prom...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. South India Viscose Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1996
Reported in: [1998]229ITR198(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow development rebate at 20% (Mistake for 25%) in respect of 'Pulp plant' as falling under Entry 16 of the Fifth Schedule to the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. For the asst. yr. 1973-74, in the re-assessment made by the ITO, the ITO reduced the development rebate on the pulp plant machinery to 15% from the rate of 25% adopted in the original assessment on the ground that the pulp produced by the assessee was for the manufacture of rayon yarn and, hence, did not fall under Item No. 16 of the list mentioned in the Fifth Schedule. Under Item 16 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act, machineries manufacturing paper and pulp, including newsprint are entitled to 25% development rebate. In other case, the development rebate would be 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »