Chennai Court January 1997 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.
Perumal Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: 1997CriLJ1773
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 11 of 1987, on the file of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, the appellant Perumal has been convicted for the offence under S. 302, IPC, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, on the allegation that on 14-11-1986 at about 8-00 a.m., in Ayyampatti Mariamman Koil street, in front of the petty shop of the appellant, he attacked the deceased Chinnaiyan on his left side of the head with 'nunakkattai' (M.O. 1), as a result of which the deceased died at 1-30 p.m., at the Government General Hospital, Trichy. 2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows :- (a) The appellant Perumal is the elder brother of the deceased Chinnaiyan. P.W. 1 Sivapakkiyam is the wife of the deceased. The houses of the deceased as well as the appellant are situate in the main road near Mariyamman Koil Street, Ayyampatti village, separated by a partition wall. Both the deceased and appellant had their petty shops in front of their respective house...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1997
Reported in: (1997)137CTR(Mad)619; [1997]228ITR354(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, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on term deposits should be treated as 'business income'?' 2. The assessee, M/s Madras Refineries Ltd., is a public limited company, carrying on business in refining of petroleum products. The assessment year involved in this case is 1974-75 in respect of which the previous year ended on 30th June, 1973. During the course of the assessment, the assessee claimed relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961. During the course of the assessment proceedings, for the asst. yr. 1974-75, the assessee received a total sum of Rs. 29,73,601 as interest in the following manner : Rs.(a) Interest on term deposits with banks in India 29,30,573(b) Interest on time deposits with FNCB, New Yo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P.A.C. Ramasamy Raja Education Charity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR416(Mad)
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja took notice for the respondent and undertook to file Vakalath. 2. In this tax case petition, the Department requests this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'Act' : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in construing the amount of Rs. 42,243 as being part of the amount of Rs. 6,50,000 which the assessee had mentioned in Form 10 under r. 17 of the IT Rules, 1962, as being accumulated or set apart under s. 11(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not erred in holding that the accumulated income in respect of which the conditions under sub-s. (2) of s. 11 are satisfied will be entitled to exemption over and above 25 per cent of the income which is allo...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. V.V.A. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Mad)463; [1999]236ITR878(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 s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961 can be invoked to revise an order of assessment passed by the ITO on the basis of directions issued by the IAC under s. 144A of the said Act ?' 2. In the asst. yr. 1971-72, the ITO had made an assessment. The principal matter was assessment of capital gains arising on the sale of buses. The assessment matter came up in appeal at the instance of the ITO before the Tribunal. Then they referred the case back to the ITO to make the fresh assessment. While making the fresh assessment the IAC to whom the ITO had under s. 144A of the IT Act, 1961 referred the matter for guidance, had issued directions for the guidance of the ITO, which directions according to the said provision is binding on the ITO. In the directions issued by the IAC about the computation of capital gains, the IAC had permi...
S. Rathnakumar and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ464
ORDER1. In the order second read above, Government in supersession of the orders issued in G.O.Ms. No. 226, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, dated 26.4.1990 have ordered that notwithstanding anything contained in the by-laws of the Primary Milk Producers' Co-operative Societies, the Members who are not otherwise disqualified to vote at, or stand for, any election in accordance with the provision of the Act or the Rules thereunder and who have supplied Milk to the Society for 120 days or 300 litres during the period commencing from the date of commencement of the preceding Co-operative year and ending on that date 30 days prior to the date of election shall be eligible to vote at or stand for any eleption to the society.2. In the orders third read above, Government have issued an election schedule to complete the election process to the Co-operatives since a number of representation have been received to rescind the exemption granted in the order second read above so that all the members...
Assistant Registrar of Companies Vs. Premier Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: [1997]89CompCas732(Mad); 1997(1)CTC382
R. Balasubramanian, J.1. All these revisions are direct against the common order dated October 18, 1985, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offices-I), Madras. The revision petitioner in all these cases is the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, and the respondents in each case are different persons. However, in view of the common point involved in all these cases, I have decided to dispose of all the revisions together by way of a common order.2. The revision petitioner, who is hereinafter referred to as the complainant in this order, had filed 32 complaints against various companies alleging that some of them have violate section 159 of the Companies Act and some of them have violated section 220 of the Companies Act; both offences are punishable under section 162 of the Companies Act. It is not in dispute that all the complaints have been filed after the expiry of six months prescribed under section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,...
Visal Surgical Equipment Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(95)ELT40(Mad)
1. These writ petitions coming on for hearing on Fridays the third day of January 1997 and on this day upon perusing the petitions and affidavits filed in support thereof and the records relevant to the prayer aforesaid compraised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. E. S. Govindan, Advocate for the petitioner in both the writ petitions and of Mr. K. Jayachandran, Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents, in both the petitions the Court made the following order :In these two Writ petitions, the parties are common and the points involved are also one and the same hence, by consent of both the sides, these writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. 2. In W.P. No. 4413 of 1987, the petitioner M/s. Vishal Surgical Equipment Co. represented by its partner one Kasthuri Ahuja has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records ending with the order Air C. No. ...
P. Preman Vs. M.P. Andy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC305
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. In this revision petition the revision petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.12.1986 in Reference No. 5066/C2/85 on the file of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Executive) Mahe. A few facts are essential to be stated In this case. The revision petitioner and the sole respondent are neighbours. There is admittedly a tree situated in the house of the revision petitioner. On 28.9.1985 the respondent gave a complaint to the Executive Magistrate, complaining that the existence of the tree in the house of the revision petitioner is a source of nuisance not only to his personal safety but also to his property. In otherwords, his grievance was that the tree is situated in such a manner that it is likely to fall at any time on his house and thereby cause danger to his personal safety as well as damages to the property. On this basis he moved the Executive Magistrate to take appropriate steps to protect him.2. The Executive Magistrate passed an ord...
Kaliammal and anr. Vs. Ganapathy Appan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC493
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J. 1. Respondents 2 and 3 in A.S.No. 84 of 1994 and in I.A.No. 223 of 1996 in the said appeal have filed this civil revision petition against the order allowing the said I.A.No. 223 of 1996, which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for reception of a document as additional evidence. The said documents is none other then the original of Ex.B-16, already marked in the suit, which is a certified copy of the said original.2. Despite the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am unable to see any error of jurisdiction, which could come under the main part of Section 115 of C.P.C. or any irreparable injury, which is spoken to in the proviso thereto. First of all it is a moot point whether the abovesaid original document could be considered as any new document or 'additional evidence', warranting invoking Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C. in the light of the fact that already the certified copy thereof had been marked as Ex.B.16 in the suit. The relevant averment in t...
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the District Collector Vs. V.A. Abdul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC639; (1997)IIMLJ261
ORDERD. Raju, J.1. The State represented by the District Collector of Madurai is the appellant in the above appeal filed under Clause XV of the Letters Patent. The respondents herein have filed O.S.No. 327 of 1971 on the file of the Sub-Court, 'Dindigul for themselves as pattadars owning double crop wet lands in the villages of Batlagundu and Kanavoipatty and as also representatives of all double crop wet ayacutdhars of the said two villages. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, the appellant herein, from diverting the water of Manjalar either impounding the same at the Manjalar Dam site or otherwise, without arranging for adequate supply of water for the second crop every year for all the registered double crop wet lands in the said villages or in the alternative for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to supply water for two crops on the aforesaid lands. The case of the plaintiffs is that Batlagundu and Kanavoipatti are two adjacent v...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »