Chennai Court February 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.
Tamil Nadu Jai Bharath Mills Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. and C. Ex. (A), Tri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: 1997(57)ECC217; 1998(99)ELT213(Mad)
K. A. Swami, C.J. 1. At the stage of admission, Shri Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Central Excise Department has taken notice for the respondents. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal. 2. The appeal is preferred against the order dated 6-2-1997 passed by the learned single Judge, rejecting W.P. 1412 of 1997 and W.M.P. 2375 of 1997 filed therein. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 7-1-1997 passed by the 1st respondent in Appeal 182/96 (MDU). The petitioner has also sought for quashing the demand of excise duty as claimed in the show cause notice dated 23-6-1995 as confirmed in the order dated 6-3-1996 by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings, Ref. No.C.IV/16/59/95-UCD. 4. We may, at the outset, point out that the latter prayer cannot be gone into in the proceeding because the same is challenged in the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority. The ...
The Land Commissioner and anr. Vs. Rajeswari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC402
ORDER1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single judge of this Court dated 15.11.1989 in W.P.No. 8150 of 1981, where under, the learned single judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, seeking to quash the order of the 1st appellant made in his proceedings dated 7.5.1981, confirming the final statement published Under Section 12 of Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, Act 58 of 1961, as amended by Act 17 of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the 2nd appellant in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 13.8.1980.2. Necessary and relevant facts for the purpose of appreciation of the claim projected in this appeal, are, that the respondent/Rajeswari is the wife of one Vivekananda Reddiar and they have four children. The respondent (wife) had in her own right, held and extent of 25.15 ordy. acres, equivalent to 13.06 std. acres of land as stridhana property. The head of the family, Vivekananda Reddi...
Gooda Srinivasalu Naidu Vs. the Collector and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC106
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. This writ petition filed against the action of the second respondent namely Tahsildar, Uthukottai, Chengleput District, for initiating action under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905 (hereinafter referred to as Act) under notice dated 18.10.1986 calling on the petitioner to surrender the land located in Survey Nos. 225 and 240/3 of an extent of 2-00 acres in Kottakuppam village, Uthukottai Taluk, Chengleput District which is said to be under the unauthorised occupation of the petitioner for which the petitioner had been assessment under Section 3 of the Act.2. The petitioner claiming to be an agricultrist submits that he is in occupation of the said land since 1952. The land in question is situated near Kusasthalai river as river poramboke. The petitioner has developed the said land and converted the same as cultivable land. The occupation of the said land by the petitioner is neither objected to by the other local villagers nor caused any hindra...
Selvaraju Kounder Vs. Sahadeva Kounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ209
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S. No. 896 of 1994, on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore, is the appellant.2. Plaintiff is the father of the appellant, and the suit filed by him is to declare that the father continues to be the absolute owner of the suit properties, and for recovery of possession of the same from the very obstruction of the defendant, and for future profits till properties are delivered to him.3. Material averments may be summarised as follows:-Late Varadharaja Kounder was the father of the plaintiff, and, at the time of his death, there was only 6 cents of land (housesite) belonging to him. The same inherited by plaintiff and his two brothers. Each of them got two cents for their respective share. Except for this, plaintiff did not inherit anything from his father. Even these two cents, plaintiff has already sold. It is alleged that plaintiff's father-in-law Narayanaswami had three daughters, and plaintiff's wife was the eldest. Narayanaswam...
P.R. Munuswamy Naidu Vs. V. Venkatesan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ18
S.S. Subramani, J.1. 8th defendant in O.S. No. 294 of 1973, on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Vellore, North Arcot District, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by plaintiffs was one for partition claiming 3/8th share in the plaint items.3. The relevant facts which are necessary for disposing of the appeal are, that the property belonged to one Narasimhalu Naidu, who had two sons, Rathna Naidu and Veeraraghava Naidu. They constituted a joint family. After the death of Narasimhalu Naidu, other members continued to be joint, and they also acquired other properties from out of the income, which admittedly belonged to the family. Plaintiff is the son of Veeraraghava Naidu and his son is deceased first defendant. Defendants 2 to 8 and one Perumal Naidu are the sons of Rathna Naidu. It is said that the defendants alone are taking the income. Therefore, the plaintiff prays that he may be allotted 3/8th share.4. In the written statement filed by second defendant, which has bee...
Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. P.D. Kumaresan (Cgt V.S. Rajaramalingam)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: (1997)139CTR(Mad)177; [1998]230ITR605(Mad)
ORDERAbdul hadi, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, under s. 26(1) of the GT Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal has referred in TC Nos. 361 and 362 of 1984 the following common question of law, for the opinion of this Court for the asst. yrs. 1975-76 and 1976-77 with respect to the respondent-assessee P. D. Kumaresan : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the gifts made by the assessee of the amounts from fixed deposits, which the assessee held outside India, namely, England, together with interest to his daughters in India by directing the manager to mail transfer the proceeds to the donees, were exempt under s. 5(1)(ii) of the Act for the two assessment years under reference ?' 2. Likewise, at the instance of the Revenue, the said Tribunal has referred to this Court the following question in TC Nos. 409 and 410 of 1984 in respect of the same assessment years with reference to the respondent-assessee S. Rajaramalingam : 'Whether, on the ...
Salem Co-operative Spg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: [1998]230ITR139(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following common question of law for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1974-75 for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an assessment order made to give effect to an appellate order completely supersedes the original assessment order and a rectification of a mistake which appeared in both the assessment orders could be taken as a rectification of only the fresh assessment order and, therefore, made within the period of limitation ?' 2. The orders of original assessments for both the assessment years were passed on 17th December, 1974, and the original assessment orders contained certain mistakes on the question whether the deduction should be carried forward from the earlier orders. There was a subsequent order rectifying the assessment orders. The revised assessment orders were made on 14th August, 1978, and in the revised assessment orders dt. 14th A...
Balkis Ammal by Power of Attorney Agent K.P.M. Abdul Gafor Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC427
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The writ petition challenges the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act issued in G.O. Ms. No. 1070, Public (Telephones II) Department dated 12.6.1985 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued in G.O.Ms. No. 1643, Public (Telephones II) Department dated 28.8.1986. Under the said notification, the lands of the petitioner, to the extent of 28 cents in R.S. No. 124-2B in Thittacheri Village, Nannilam Taluk, are sought to be acquired.2. According to the petitioner, she had purchased these lands on 19.6.1982. As already stated, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 12.6.1985 proposing to acquire the lands for the purpose of first respondent Department. The petitioner was served with a notice on 9.6.1983 inviting her to file objections, if any, to the proposed acquisition. The petitioner had filed her objections. Again, a notice was served proposing to hold an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act on 25.9.1985. The pe...
Muthu Thangiah thevar Rice Mill Vs. Mariyayee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1997
Reported in: 1997ACJ919
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were served through court as early as on 16.12.1993 itself. Heard Mr. G.R. Lakshmanan, counsel appealing for appellant. Heard Mr. V.M. Ravichandran, counsel appealing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 whose vakalath returned and has not been represented.2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in C.M.A. No. 1033 of 1988 dated 3.3.1992 dismissing the appeal filed by the owner of the tractor on the ground that the owner of the tractor and trailer at the time of the accident has permitted the use of the tractor and trailer for a prohibited use for a purpose not permitted in the policy. Before the Tribunal objection statement was filed by the appellant herein denying two things, viz., (1) that the accident had not taken place due to the negligent driving of the driver but for the careless and negligent driving of the cyclist, and (2) that the owner of the tractor has given the tractor only to Karambakudi Panchayat for a ...
P.N. Vengatesan and Others Vs. Nada Ilamady and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1997
Reported in: II(1998)ACC403; 1998ACJ187; AIR1997Mad276; (1997)IIMLJ71
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pondicherry in M.A.C.T.O.P, No. 135 of 1992 dated 22-2-1994 wherein a total compensation of Rs. 5,75,000, - together with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 12-3-1993, the date of filing of the petition till realisation subject to payment of Court-fee, if any.2. The respondent No. I is the wife of the deceased Ramanathan and respondents 2 and 3 are the minor daughters represented by their mother and next friend the first respondent herein.3. They filed M.C.O.P. 135 of 1992 claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-for the death of the first respondent's husband in a road accident that occurred on 6-1-1991 at about 6.45 hours alleging that on the said date while her husband was riding on a scooter PYQ 7471 along Mahatma Gandhi Road, Pondicherry from South ot north near Ashramam Cement Godown, the bus bearing Registration No. PYT 1155 belonging to the first appellant P. N. Venka...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »