Chennai Court March 1997 Judgments
Govindan Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ731
N. Arumugham, J.1. The convicted accused for the offences under Sections 323, 325 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months, three years and life imprisonment respectively but however to run concurrently, by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai, in S.C. No. 185 of 1987 dated 10-12-1987, has preferred this appeal, challenging its correctness and validity. 2. P.W. 1 by name Kamatchi is the wife of deceased Gurusamy, Servai in the instant case. She would claim that two years prior to her giving evidence before the trial Court at about 4 p.m. on a day the accused, Chidambaram, Narmaran, Pandi and Gunasekaran beat one Padmini and P.W. 3 Gomathi and P.W. 1 questioned them as to why they had beaten ladies, the accused retorted by asking as to who she was to ask for it and beat P.W. 1. This incident was informed by P.W. 1 to her husband and her mother P.W. 2 Muthurakku. This was also respondent by h...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sri Padmavathi Cotton Mills.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)371; [1999]236ITR340(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. These are petitions filed by the Revenue under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the subsidy received should not be reduced from the cost of assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation and investment allowance 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,47,557 made by the ITO to the income declared ?' 2. The assessment year involved is 1982-83. 3. In so far as the first question is concerned, Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Revenue stated that the issue raised in the said question is fully covered by the decision in CIT vs. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. : [1994]210ITR830(SC) against the Revenue. The Supreme Court in that case has held that the centr...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chrome Leather Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR708(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.1. Pursuant to the direction of this court in T.C.P. No. 369 of 1981 dated April 19, 1982, the following question of law has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal to this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no case for any disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75 ?' 2. The facts as found by the Appellate Tribunal are as under : The Income-tax Officer, in the course of assessment proceedings of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75, the previous year ending on March 31, 1974, disallowed, inter alia, the payment of a sum of Rs. 16,35,590 relating to purchase of semi-processed goat skins from India Leather Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as I. L. C. Ltd.). One Nagappa Chettiar was the chairman of the assessee and he was also the managing director...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G.S.R. Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: [1999]235ITR785(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The batch of petitions filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the Revenue covers two assessment years, namely, 1985-86 and 1986-87. The questions sought for by the revenue are as under : T. C. P. Nos. 70 and 71 of 1996 (assessment year 1985-86) : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that gifts made by the producers to the children of the assessee cannot be construed as consideration received by the assessee for the professional service rendered by him and accordingly in excluding these gifts from the total income of the assessee 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards exploitation right remaining unpaid for the assessment year 1985-86 ?' T. C. P. Nos. 72 and 73 of 1996 (assessment year 1986-87) : '1. Whether, on the...
Tag this Judgment!India Forge and Drop Stampings Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: [1998]233ITR112(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a company. The original assessment for the asst. yr. 1974-75 was completed on 9th March, 1977. The ITO, in the original assessment made, accepted the claim of the assessee for depreciation and extra shift allowance on certain items of machinery including tools. The assessee subsequently filed an application on 29th October, 1980 under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the ITO claiming depreciation at a higher rate than that was originally claimed by the assessee and allowed by the ITO in the original assessment. The ITO, however, refused to entertain the application on the ground that there was no apparent mistake in the order of original assessment made on 9th March, 1977, and there was no scope for rectification in terms of s. 154 of the Act. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) also failed on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the records. The Tribunal, on the assessee's appeal also ...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Narayanaswamy Vs. Pattusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)IILLJ23Mad; (1997)IIMLJ221
1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Tiruchirapalli W.C. Application No. 52/1986.' 2. The petitioner's case is as follows : The applicant has been engaged by the Opposite Party as a workman under him on October 29, 1984. While the applicant was moving the paddy in paddy thrashing machine, his left leg was crushed and it was operated. The crushed Portion was later amputated and the disability has become permanent. The Opposite Party is evading payment of any compensation in spite of approach made by the Petitioner for the same. The applicant-petitioner was earning a sum of Rs. 40/- per day. Therefore, he makes a claim for Rs. 75,000/-. 3. In the written statement, the Opposite Party contends as follows : The petitioner was not a workman under the Opposite party. It is false to say that the respondent engaged the petitioner for moving paddy in the grinding machine. The allegation that the injury was sustained in the course of his empl...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.M. Kadar HussaIn Vs. O.M.R. Selvaraj and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC559; (1997)IIMLJ57
ORDER1. This Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 20.04.1992, confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Erode in O.S. No. 115 of 1976.2. The plaintiff, who lost before the trial Court and also before the learned single Judge of this Court, has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 32,644 with interest and for costs, against the 1st defendant personally and against the joint family assets in the hands of the defendants.3. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent executed Ex. A.1 promissory note for Rs. 15,000 in favour of one Ranganayagi, wife of S. Ganapathi of B.P. Agraharam Village, Erode Taluk on 1.09.1970, promising to repay the said sum either to the said Ranganayagi or her order on demand with interest at 21.60 per cent per annum and that the 1st defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 500 towards interest on 7.04.1973 and made an endorsement to th...
Tag this Judgment!Renganayaki Ammal and anr. Vs. D.R. Perumal Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC459
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The petitioners have filled the revision petition against the order dated 20.8.1991 made I.A.No. 74 of 1990 in O.S.No. 20 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court Chingleput.2. According to the petitioners, they are the petitioners in the said suit. They have filed the said suit for a decree to set aside the lease deed dated 17.12.1975 and for past and future mesne profits.3. On 4.1.1979, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs and also awarded a sum of Rs. 3100 as mesne profits. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 4.1.1979, the respondents/defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 66 of 1979 before the District Judge, Chingleput, who by a judgment and decree dated 5.11.1981 confirmed the order of the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 4.1.1979 and the same was subsequently confirmed by this Court in S.A.352 of 1982 by a judgment and decree dated 4.2.1986.4. Thereafter, the petitioners/plaintiffs herein filed an interlocutory Application ...
Tag this Judgment!Deccan Pipes and Tubes Ltd. Vs. the Sub Collector/Land Acquisition Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ184
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. A.S. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1987 have been filed by the respective claimants for enhanced compensation while A.S. Nos. 722 and 723 of 1988 have been filed by the State questioning the award of compensation by the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, in excess of the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.2. The claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982 made a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) through the Sub Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, Hosur, in Award No. 4 of 1980. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,28,685. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 3 of 1982 claimed enhanced compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. Likewise, the claimant in L.A.O.P. No. 4 of 1982 made a reference under Section 18 of the Act through the Sub Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, Hosur, in Award No. 4 of 1980. An extent of 10...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary, Ulagappar Higher Secondary School Vs. the Joint Directo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ368
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Secretary, Ulagappar Higher Secondary School, Ramachandrapuram, Pudukottai District, is the petitioner in all the revision petitions and writ petition.2. Facts which are common to all these cases may be stated as follows:The School represented by Secretary stated that the same was started as a High School and later upgraded as a Higher Secondary School in the year 1986. Origi-nally the School was a fee-levying school, receiving twothird grand upto the year 1964, but subsequently it became 100% Government aided School from 1964-65 on the introduction of Free Education System. The School was governed by the Madras Educational Rules till the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules, 1974 were enacted. It is further stated that on 23.10.1991, four teaches of the School committed grave acts of misconduct and, therefore, enquiry was conducted by a duly constituted School Committee, and based on its Report, to terminate the services of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »