Chennai Court March 1997 Judgments
Govindaraj Vs. Shanmugham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ2
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This matter came up before this Court for admission on 18.1.1997, Since it is a short matter, the notice of motion was ordered.2. The contesting respondents viz., respondents 1, 6 to 8 are served and Mr. T.R. Rajaraman appears for the 8th respondent and there is no representation for other respondents and they have been set ex parte even in lower court in I.A. No. 569 of 1996 which is the subject-matter of this revision petition.3. The civil revision petition challenges the order of the principle District Munsif, Arni, passed in I.A. No. 569 of 1996 in O.S. No. 195 of 1990. The petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed a petition to receive the lease deed and mark the lease deed as one of the documents in support of his claim in the suit. The respondents 1, 7, 8 and 9 have filed a counter-affidavit stating that no reasons are given for the production of the document at a very late stage. The Principal District Munsif, Arni held that the document is a nec...
Tag this Judgment!T. Gajayalakshmi Thayumanavar and anr. Vs. the Secretary, Public Works ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ301
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order dated 7.7.1994 passed by A. Abdul Hadi, J., in W.P. No. 11576 of 1994 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs by way of compensation for the death of one T. Suryaprakash, who is the son of the appellants and who lost his life due to electrocution.2. The order of the learned Judge reads thus:The petitioners are claiming a compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs from the respondents. That is the mandamus sought for in this writ petition. The said relief is prayed for on the ground that on 15.11.1993, the petitioners' son died due to electrocution and hence, on the ground of negligence on the part of the respondents, the abovesaid claim is made.The appropriate remedy in such cases is only a regular suit. The writ jurisdiction is only for the enforcement of a right and not for establishment of right. The writ petitioners have to prove negligence on the ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohan Gandhi Vs. 1. Sri Visalam Chit Funds and Others. (Crl. R. C. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: [1998]231ITR69(Mad)
R. BALASUBRAMANIAN J. - These two revisions have been filed by the Income-tax Department questioning the order dated April 11, 1983, in C.M.P. No. 174 of 1983 in C.C. No. 22 of 1983 and against the order dated September 4, 1984, in C.M.P. No. 1073 of 1983 in C.C. No. 23 of 1983 both on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, discharging the respective accused under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.A few facts are necessary to dispose of these two revision cases. The accused in the two complaints lodged by the Income-tax Officer, Madurai, one in the year 1979, taken on file as C.C. No. 82 of 1979 against Sri Visalam Chit Fund Ltd., and 28 others and another complaint in the year 1980 against Nellai Finance Private Limited and 26 others came up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. Both the complaints were lodged for offences under sections 120B, 193, 196, 420, 468 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 277 and 278B of the Income-tax Act. The asse...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohan Gandhi Vs. Sri Visalam Chit Funds and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1997
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)106
R. Balasubramanian, J.These two revisions have been filed by the Income Tax Department questioning the order dated 11-4-1983, in C.M.P. No. 174 of 1983 in C.C. No. 22 of 1983 and against the order dated 4-9-1984, in C.M.P.No. 1073 of 1985 in C.C. No. 23 of 1983 both on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, discharging the respective accused under section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. A few facts are necessary to dispose of these two revision cases. The accused in the two complaints lodged by the Income Tax Officer, Madurai, one in the year 1979, taken on file as C.C. No. 82 of 1979 against Shri Visalam Chit Fund Ltd., and 28 others and another complaint in the year 1980 against Nellai Finance Private Limited and 26 others came up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. Both the complaints were lodged for offences under sections 120B, 195, 196, 420, 468 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 277 and 278B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter refe...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation Vs. N.P.V. Ayyanar Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC459
ORDERRaju, J.1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 1300 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, who succeeded before the learned Trial Judge but lost before the first appellate court. The respondent- plaintiff has filed the suit for a direction to the defendant- appellant to return or refund or pay the sum of Rs. 10,810 with subsequent interest thereon to-the plaintiff.2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a contractor with the defendant-corporation, that he was the highest bidder in the matter of felling and collection of eucalyptus trees in Managiri forest in Udayarpalayam range and for which purpose, they have also entered into an agreement dated 3.6.1976 marked as Ex.A-1 and 16.7.1976 and in accordance with the same, the plaintiff claimed to have deposited a sum of Rs. 29,455 and also Rs. 11,090 as security, the contracts were said to have been duly fulfilled and when the plaintiff claimed for the return of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyaswami Alias Ayyavoo Gounder Vs. Venugopal Alias Venugopal Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ55
ORDERGovardhan, J.1. The revision is against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam dated 29.9.1995 in I.A. No. 427 of 1993 in unnumbered C.M.A. No. of 1993.2. The petitioner in his petition contends as follows : In the suit filed against the petitioner, temporary injunction has been granted by the trial Court against the petitioner. The petitioner has instructed his advocate to file an appeal against the said order. The advocate informed him that he would inform the petitioner as soon as gets copy of the order. But, no communication has been received from the advocate. When contacted, the advocate informed him that he has sent a letter. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for copy and filed the appeal. There is a delay of 10 days. The delay is not wilful. It may be condoned.3. The respondent in his count contends as follows : The allegation that the advocate informed the petitioner that he had already applied for copies, and informed him that he would wri...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan Alias Govindaswamy Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ623
N. Arumugham, J.1. The accused is the appellant herein, who challenges the correctness and validity of the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered against him by the learned Sessions Judge, Periyar District at Erode in Sessions Case No. 34 of 1987 dated 4th August, 1987, finding him guilty for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and thereby convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. One Karuppanna Nadar of Kathakofikadu near Arachalur was running a Toddy shop. Under the same place an illicit arrack shop was also going on and the customers after having consumed toddy and arrack were used to be engaged in gambling in the same place every evening. Following the time, on 10th August, 1986, the accused herein by name Govindan alias Govindaswamy and others had consumed toddy in the shop of Karuppanna Nadar between 4.00-6.30 p.m. and that after finishing the business in both the toddy shop and arrack shop, they began to gamble by playing cards with mone...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhavani Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)336; [1999]237ITR855(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), for the asst. yr. 1980-81 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the, case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing as deduction the entire claim for payment of additional bonus to the workers, even though such payment along with payment of bonus exceeded the quantum prescribed under the Bonus Act ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1980-81, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 1,32,263 as bonus in excess of the amount prescribed under the payment of Bonus Act and claimed that the said sum of Rs. 1,32,263 was paid as incentive bonus as per the industrial settlement arrived at between the management and employees dt. 15th October, 1979. The ITO, however, held that the amount paid w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)334; [1999]237ITR857(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following three questions of law for the asst. yr. 1978-79 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, the payment of incentive bonus in excess of the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act is an allowable deduction notwithstanding s. 36(1)(iii) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy received will not go to reduce the cost of the assets and consequently depreciation and investment allowance should not be calculated at the lower figure 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the guarantee commission paid to a bank for purchase of capital asset is allowable as revenue expenditure ?' 2. The first questi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Essar Bulk Carriers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR600(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. Pursuant to the direction of this court, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as ('the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of rule 19A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80J for the assessment year 1974-75 in respect of the new industrial undertaking notwithstanding the fact there was no opening capital on the first day of the computation period is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is a company. The assessee, in the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1974-75, relevant to the previous year ended on March 31, 1974, claimed deduction under section 80J of the Act in respect of the profits derived from its new industrial undertaking. The I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »