Chennai Court October 1976 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.
Karuppammal and ors. Vs. T.U. Poosari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad302; (1976)1MLJ170
Kailasam, C.J.1. L. P. A. No. 96 of 1975 is filed against the common judgment of N.S. Ramaswami J. in A. S. 304 and 660 of 1969, which arise out of O. S. No. 99 of 1963, by the defendants 9 to 15, who are the legal representatives of the first defendant. L. P. A. 59 of 1976 is filed by defendants 3, 5 to 8 and the legal representatives of the 4th defendant against the same judgment. The suit O. S. 99 of 1963 was filed by the respondents for setting aside the decree passed in an earlier suit, O. S. 456 of 1950, and for consequential relief of possession in respect of a part of the suit property and injunction in respect of the remaining part.2. The property involved is a vacant land of an extent of 14-47 acres comprised in three survey Numbers, S. Nos. 755, 756 and 94/4 Thottipalayam village, Palladam taluk, Coimbatore Dist. One Shanmugham Chettiar, who is the 1st defendant in the suit, filed O. S. 456 of 1950 on the file of the subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore claiming that he had...
T. B. Hanumantharaj (Decd.) (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR414(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - Under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of the court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment for the year 1951-52 made on March 31, 1960, was barred by limitation in view of the provision of section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act ?'One Borajannah was an assessee who was being assessed as an individual. He died on May 5, 1949, leaving his two sons, T. B. Raju and T. B. Hanumantha Raj, and also his widow, Putta Thayammal. What was left by the deceased consisted of immovable property and business, which devolved upon the Hindu undivided family constituted by the sons and others. There was a total partition of this family on November 30, 1950. The present reference relates to the assessment year 1951-52 for which the relevant accounting periods were : (a) the year ended November 30, 1950, so far as the immovable pro...
Venkatesa Colour Works Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR309(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Act has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court in the two referred cases, respectively : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the two sums of Rs. 13,312 and Rs. 1,310 claimed as a deduction in the computation of the business income of the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68 are not admissible under Section 37(1) or Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'(T.C. No. 421 of 1971). 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the two sums of Rs. 16,560 and Rs. 3,884 claimed as a deduction in the computation of the business income of the assessee for the assessment year 1967-68 are not admissible under Section 37(1) or Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'(T.C. No. 422 of 1971). 2. Though there are two refe...
A. Sankarasadasivam and anr. Vs. A. Kumaravel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad259; (1977)1MLJ342
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the lower court dismissing an application filed by the appellants herein, who are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for stay of the suit, O. S. No. 82 of 1975 on the ground that there is an arbitration agreement between that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties to the suit.2. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of three-fourth share in the suit properties belonging to respondents 1 to 3 and for recovery of maintenance said to be due to the 4th respondent. Respondents 1 to 3 and the appellants are brothers, being the sons of one Arunachala Chettiar who died leaving considerable properties. The 4th respondent is the widow of the said Arunachala Chettiar while respondents 5 and 6 are the wives of appellants 1 and 2 respectively. The said Arunachala Chettiar had executed a Will on 6-11-1958, bequeathing his properties equally in favour of all his s...
K.K. Chary, Representing International Business Corporation Vs. D. Jos ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ331
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. These writ petitions will have to be allowed on the short ground of limitation which the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, has failed to consider. The following facts require to he noted for a proper appreciation of the point of limitation. The services of the respondent in W.P. No. 3007 of 1972 who was employed as a clerk from 1st August, 1967 were sought to be terminated by a notice dated 12th September, 1969 and the said notice was served upon the workman on 18th September, 1969. He preferred an appeal on 5th November, 1969 under Section 41 of the Shops and Establishments Act to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, but unfortunately this point was not taken note of and therefore, there is no decision on that. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned Counsel draws my attention to Section 41 and also to Rule 9 framed under the Shops and Establishments Act and submits that admittedly reckoning from the date of service viz., 18th September, ...
T.V. Duraiswamy Naicker and ors. Vs. E. Balasubramanian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad304
1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. the suit was filed by the first respondent for a declaration of title of the plaintiff and the 6th defendant to the suit properties and for setting aside the sale deeds dated 7-8-1957 and 15-3-1961, executed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 by their guardian. The suit properties originally belonged to one Mangalammal, whose son and daughter are the plaintiff and the 6th defendant. She died on 26-1-1956 leaving behind her husband and two minor children, who are the plaintiff and the 6th defendant. She died on 26-1-1956 leaving behind her husband and two minor children, who are the plaintiff and the 6th defendant. She bequeathed the suit properties under a registered Will dated 5-11-1955 in equal moieties in favour of her tow children, the plaintiff and the 6th defendant, and under the same Will, she also appointed her brother one Kalyanarama Iyer as guardian for the minor children and the properties with a direction to be in management of the suit ...
Muthalu Ammal Vs. A.V. Amudham Alias Pichamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ215
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff claimed the suit property as belonging to him by virtue of a purchase under a document dated 9th May, 1952 executed by one Muruga Padayachi for a sum of Rs. 500. The plaintiff was a minor at the time when this property was sold to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 14th July, 1956 by his mother. The father of the plaintiff was then alive and he died only in September, 1965. According to the plaintiff, his father was the natural guardian and during his father's lifetime his mother could not have assumed guardianship and further there was no justification or legal necessity for the sale. He sued for declaration of his title and possession. The suit itself was filed on 12th July, 1968 within 12 years of the alienation by the mother.2. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff's mother was acting as his guardian even when the property was purchased and that the father, though he was alive, had rel...
Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. Estate of Pichai Thambi. (by Acc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR711(Mad)
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the money received under a policy of insurance effected by the deceased on his life and assigned absolutely in favour of his wife was not chargeable to estate duty under section 14 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, on the death of the deceased ?'The short facts necessary for appreciating the above question are as follows : One Pitchai Thambi died on March 19, 1966, at the age of 70. He had taken an insurance policy No. 78214414 on November 18, 1953, for a sum of Rs. 20,000 from the Bombay Life Insurance Society. He assigned the said policy in favour of his wife on March 16, 1956. The policy matured on November 18, 1965. The deceased wrote a letter to the Life Insurance Corpo...
Premier Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR637(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deduction of the sum of Rs. 52,591 ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company, carrying on general insurance business. The assessee invested a portion of its funds in the purchase of shares of Kapila Textile Mills Ltd., a public limited company, having its registered office at Nanjangud, Mysore State. In the year 1953, the company acquired 10,000 shares of Kapila Textile Mills Ltd., the face value of the shares being Rs. 10 each and the paid-up value being Rs. 5 per share. Accordingly, the assessee paid Rs. 50,000 for acquiring the said shares. In the same year, the Controller of Insurance directed the assessee to sell these shares. The assessee carried out the dir...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L. Alagusundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR508(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, applied to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for referring the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court:' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 7,81,500 was not assessable as dividend under Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 1961-62 ?' 2. Whether, on the materials available on record, the Appellate Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the loan would not be covered by the expression ' payment for the benefit of the assessee ' and, as such, Section 2(6A)(e) would be inapplicable to the facts of the case ?' 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal stated a case and referred only the first question of law to this court. In its view, the question as framed was comprehensive enough to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »