Chennai Court December 1976 Judgments
Arunachala thevar and ors. Vs. Govindarajan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ431
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 41 of 1969 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thanjavur, are the appellants. They filed the suit against the respondents-defendants 1 to 4 for specific performance of an agreement of pale, by directing them to execute one sale deed in favour of the first plaintiff in respect of items 1 to 36 of plaint A schedule and another sale deed in favour of the second plaintiff in respect of items 1 to 21 of plaint B schedule, for possession of the said items of properties with future mesne profits and for costs. As per the plaint allegations defendants 1 to 3 owners of the plaint schedule properties entered into an agreement on 10th March, 1968 with the first plaintiff under Exhibit A-1, agreeing to sell an extent of 14 acres 521/2 cents for a consideration of Rs. 500 per month and execute the sale deed on or before 10th September, 1968. On the said date of agreement, the first plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 2,000. It is alleged that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (Central) Vs. Express Newspapers (P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR347(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - The revenue sought for a reference and, consequently, the following question of law has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our decision :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 52,747 levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1961-62 ?'Shri Janakidas Baijnath of Nepal, hereinafter referred to as the assessee was a non-resident. On February 11, 1963, the Income-tax Officer issued a notice under section 163 of the Income-tax Act to the principal officer of the Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd., Madras (hereinafter referred to as the 'representative-assessee'), proposing to treat it as the agent of the assessee for the assessments to be made against the non-resident for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1962-63. He called for objections and gave time till February 20, 1963. No representations were made b...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Hotels Association Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR241(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to us on an application filed by it under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the assessee's claim to exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1961-62 or under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 is valid in law ?'The assessment years under consideration are 1959-60 to 1963-64. As a common question of law is said to have arisen out of the order of the Tribunal, the applications for reference were consolidated and a common statement of the cases prepared.The section is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (XXI of 1960). The relevant objects of the assessee-association which need to be extracted are as under :'(a) To organise the proprietors of several cafe...
Tag this Judgment!W.S. Insulators of India Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ225Mad
Mohan, J.1. The writ petition is directed against the preliminary findings of the Industrial Tribunal made in Industrial Dispute No. 20 of 1975. Two issues were raised by way of preliminary points; (1) Whether the Tribunal cannot proceed with the enquiry during she pendency of the rival claims of Thiruvalargal K. Kuchelar and Kattur Gopal for the office of the president-ship and (2). Whether there is no real industrial dispute between the parties warranting a reference to the Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Deputes Act. Both these points were answered in favour of the workmen and the main industrial dispute was to be taken up for decision on merits. At that a stage, the present writ petition has come to be preferred.2. Concerning issue No. 1, very rightly Mr. M.R Narayanaswamy, the learned Counsel tot the writ petitioner, does not argue. Bat the main attack is about the finding rendered by the Tribunal on issue No. 2. Since it has proceeded on the footing that even thoug...
Tag this Judgment!Chandran Padayachi Vs. T.V. Venkatasubramanya Vadyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad292
1. The third defendant in O. S. No. 406 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Valangiman at Kumbakonam, is the appellant herein.2. One Kamakshiammal and her son, the first respondent herein, filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties, along with mesne profits against defendants 1 to 4. Their case is that the suit properties comprising 8 cents in R. S. 459/2 and 26 cents in R. S. 460/5 in Thiruvisanallur originally belonged to the family of one Subbier, that as they were, adjacent and contiguous to his land, the first respondent purchased the undivided half share of Narayanaswami Iyer, a member of Subbier's family under a sale deed dated 5-3-1959, that by another sale deed he purchased 1/4th share therein along with other properties on 30-3-1959 and 22-5-1959 from two other sharers for his benefit benami in the name of the first defendant on the representation of the first defendant that if the sale deed is taken on his name he will be able to recover possess...
Tag this Judgment!Angalammai Ammal Vs. the District Collector, Tiruchirapalli ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: AIR1981Mad104
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ramanujarn J. dated 20-11-1975, rendered in W.-P. No. 2956 of 1972. The learned Judge disposed of two writ petitions, one W. P. No. 2956 of 1972, filed by the appellant herein and the other W. P. No. 4576, of 1975 (Pararnasivam Pillai v. Angammal and others) filed by the 4th respondent herein, by a common judgment. For the purpose of understanding the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to certain facts.2. The appellant was the original owner of S. Nos. 163/1 and 163/3 of an extent of 3.20 and 0.20 acres respectively in Ariyamangalam village, Tiruchirapalli taluk. She had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1600/- on 21-10-1957 from the Government for the installation of a pump set in the well situated in those lands under Taluk L. No. 22 of 1967. She had earlier borrowed two loans from two creditors on the security of her lands. One of the creditors filed 0. S. 660 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif Court. Tiruchirapalli for...
Tag this Judgment!L. Balakrishnan Vs. the Inspector-general of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ50
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner was employed as a Police Constable in the Union Territory of Pondicherry when he absented himself from duty without leave with effect from 13th September, 1971. His continued absence resulted in an order of the Inspector-General of Police, Pondicherry, dated the 10th February, 1972 striking off his name as a deserter with effect from the date above mentioned under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 of the Pondicherry Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), and advising him to initiate action in pursuance of Sub-rule (2) of that Rule. No further proceedings were taken against him till the 24th of April, 1972 when the Inspector-General of Police passed another order confirming the previous order and dismissing him from service with effect from the 13th of September, 1971. It is the order last mentioned by which the petitioner feels aggrieved and which he seeks to have quashed through a writ of cert...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Emcete and Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR491(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The question referred to us, at the instance of the department, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company is eligible for deduction under Section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the gross dividend income of Rs. 2,43,705 ?'2. The assessee-company earned a gross total income which included income by way of dividends from various domestic companies. The year of assessment in question is 1968-69. That the assessee-company received such inter-corporate dividends is not in dispute. What the Appellate Tribunal did was that it accepted the assessee's case that the relief to which the assessee is entitled would be 50 per cent. of the gross total income disclosed by it and that the expenses, interest, etc., incurred by the company need not be deducted for the purposes of arriving at the relief to which the assessee would be entitled under Section 80M of the Inc...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late R. Ramanujam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR273(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. This reference arises under the Estate Duty Act of 1953. At the instance of the department, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for our decision : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,000 received by the legal heir of the deceased on the group policy personal accident insurance scheme provided by the deceased's employer, was not chargeable to estate duty ?' 2. The relevant facts which are necessary to be noticed to answer the question are as follows : Ramanujam was an employee of M/s. Shardlow India Ltd., Madras. While he was on an air flight between Delhi and Paris, he met with an accident on the 24th of January, 1966, and he lost Ms life thereby. The company in which he served has a peculiar practice of its own. It takes out what is known as personal accident insurance policy with a reputed insurance company in respect of the lives of eac...
Tag this Judgment!Traders and Traders, Importers and Exporters and Manufacturers, Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad1; [1977]40STC289(Mad)
ORDERKailasam, C.J.36. In accordance with the opinion of the majority of the Full Bench, it is held that Madras Radiators and Pressings v State of Tamil Nadu 37 STC 123 : 1976 Tax LR 1533 has been erroneously decided.37. In the result, the tax case is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »