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.
K.S. Alagarsamy Vs. P. Natarajan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC292; (1997)IIMLJ128
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 629 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Madurai, aggrieved against the Order in I.A.No. 667 of 1995 in dismissing his petition for amendment, has filed the present revision before this Court.2. The petitioner herein/plaintiff has filed the said suit, viz., O.S.No. 629 of 1990 against the first respondent herein (first defendant) to declare the suit property as common lane of the petitioner and consequently grant a decree for permanent injunction restraining him from putting latrine, septic tank or any other construction in the suit property. It is further seen that originally the trial court decreed the suit and at the instance of the first defendant, in the appeal the suit was remanded to the trial Court once again to implead the second defendant (2nd respondent herein) as a necessary party. Now the second defendant has already been impleaded and filed a written statement. It is further seen from the affidavit filed in support of the...
Periaswamy Vs. Anchalai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC521
ORDERT.N. Vallinayagam, J. 1. This revision petition is preferred by a third party against the order of the District Munsif, Virudhachalam, who declined to grant redelivery of possession taken from the third party, in execution of a decree to which such third party was not a party. When the revision petition is taken up for hearing, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision under Order XXI Rule 103 C.P.C.2. Order XXI Rule 103 CPC makes it clear that any order made under Rule 98 or Rule 100 shall have the same force and subject to the conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. Learned counsel also brings to my notice a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in M. Chockalingam and Ors. v. Veerabadra Chettiar and Ors., : (1984)1MLJ17 , wherein it has been held that such an order has to be conclusive with regard to the rights of the parties and has the force of a decree and is subject to an appeal as...
Muthammal Vs. Thamburati and 6 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC12; (1997)IMLJ560
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 559 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Tenkasi, aggrieved against the Order passed in I.A. No. 496 of 1995 has filed the present revision before this Court.2. The petitioner herein has originally filed O.S.No. 559 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Tenkasi, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property against the defendants. The respondents/defendants filed a written statement disputing the various averments.3. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 496 of 1995, the petitioner herein contended that pending suit he has also filed LA. No. 1465 of 1990 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., and also obtained interim injunction in the said application. According to her, when the injunction was in force, the defendants have constructed stair-case and toilet in the first schedule of the property and also provided door and window on the plaintiff's site. This has been strengthened by the report of the C...
In Re: A.V. Raman Alias A. Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ130
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Notice has been served on A.V. Raman alias A. Venkataraman, asking him to appear before court and explain why action should not be taken against him for criminal contempt. Pursuant to the same, he entered appearance and filed his counter statement.2. Circumstances under which the suo motu contempt was taken, may be stated as follows: Against the alleged contemner, an order was passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 1.7.1996 in W.P. Nos. 4538 to 4542 of 1996, whereby he was restrained from entering the campus of this Court to do any clerical work and also from meeting any counsel. Against one J. Sudarsan, proceedings had been initiated by this Court, stating that he had committed various misdeeds. The alleged contemner was associated in that office, who claimed himself to be a legal Assistant attached to the said J. Sudarsan. An application was moved by the alleged contemner on 20.6.1996, stating that T. Nagar Police had requested him to come to the police ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. T.S. Srinivasan (Decd.) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: [1999]236ITR612(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the shares as on 1st January, 1954, should not be taken by averaging the cost taking into account the bonus shares received subsequently 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for gratuity should be treated as a liability and should be deducted from the value of the assets for finding out the break up value of the shares 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 52(2) could not be invoked in the assessee's case ?' 2. Insofar as question No. 2 is concerned, the point for consideration is whether the provision for gratuity should be treated as a liability and should be deducted from the value of the assets for finding out the break-up value of the sha...
North Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR33(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law, for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76, for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,20,691 and Rs. 1,03,551 respectively representing reserve for deficit stock on account of handling was includible in the income of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 ?' 2. For the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76, the relevant previous years ended on 30th June, 1973 and 30th June, 1974. The assessee is a co-operative marketing society. In computing the income, the ITO made the following additions : 1974-75 1975-76Rs. Rs.Reserve for deficit stock 1,20,691 1,03,551Reserve for excess stock 20,990 24,5503. These additions were confirmed in appeal by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal uphel...
R. Palani Vs. Engineering Manager, Southern Region Indian Air Lines an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC81
ORDERK.A. Swami, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3.12.1996 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P.10046 of 1995, in which the petitioner/appellant sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to refrain from proceeding further with the departmental proceeding in pursuance of the charge memo issued by the 1st respondent in proceedings No. MMA/Eng./91/10/2140 dated 1.10.1991 till a finality is arrived in the criminal proceedings made in Rc. No. 16/S/1989, dated 31.10.1989 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Egmore, Madras and enforcement proceedings made in Reference No. T.4/21/52/City/95 dated 21.03.1995 before the Enforcement Directorate, Southern Zone, Madras.2. Learned Single Judge, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajastan v. B.K. Meena and Ors., 1996 (7) Supreme Today, 432 has rejected the writ petition on the following grounds.'It is clear from th...
S. Subramanian Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Commissioner an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC558
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of Certiorari or any order, direction or writ particularity the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent herein in pertaining to his letter (RT) No. 353, Co-op. Department, Fort St. George dated 3.7.1987 and quash the same.2. The petitioner was a member and Ex-President of Srikalikapuram Agricultural Service Co-Operative Society which was under the administration of the Special Officer has filed this writ petition challenging the order of amalgamation of the said society with the third respondent society by the Registrar by his proceedings in R.C. No. 79223 of 1981 OE, dated 2.8.1984 for the gross violation of the provisions under Section 13-A of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Aggrieved by two said order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 28.8.1984 before the first respondent who in turn by his letter No. ...
M. Dhanasekarapandian and ors. Vs. Nadar Mahajana Sangam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ245
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The facts leading to the above two writ petitions and the civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows:2. The parties are referred to with reference to their rank and status in O.S. No. 417 of 1996. The first plaintiff therein is a Society registered under the Central Act 21 of 1860 and later under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The life members of the Nadar Mahajana Sangam are the members of the first plaintiff Society. There is a College called S. Vellaichamay Nadar College established by the Nadar Mahajana Sangam in the year 1965. The College offers Under Graduate, Post Graduate And Research Courses for both boys and girls and has a teaching strength of 90 members and non-teaching staff of about 2000 members. The administration of the College is under the control of the first plaintiff society. The society has to elect a Managing Board, comprising of the President, Vice President, Secretary, Correspondent and t...
North Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1997
Reported in: (1997)143CTR(Mad)279
THANIKKACHALAM, J. :At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following common question of law, for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76, for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,20,691 and Rs. 1,03,551 respectively representing reserve for deficit stock on account of handling was includible in the income of the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 ?'2. For the asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76, the relevant previous years ended on 30th June, 1973 and 30th June, 1974. The assessee is a co-operative marketing society. In computing the income, the ITO made the following additions :1974-751975-76Rs.Rs.Reserve for deficit stock1,20,6911,03,551Reserve for excess stock20,99024,550These additions were confirmed in appeal by the CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the above a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »