Chennai Court April 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.
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue Vs. Dr. K. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ279
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue, Madras under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, pursuant to a mandamus issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2484 of 1971, reported in Manjunatha v. Board of Revenue : AIR1973Mad343 . The reference concerns an instrument bearing the date 29th April, 1970, under which the respondent, Manjunatha Rai purported to release in favour of his wife a piece of land which stood in his name.2. The statement of the case shows that before stamping the instrument the respondent took it to the Collector of Madras and sought his opinion as to the proper stamp duty payable thereon. The Collector went into the matter and, by his order, dated 21st April, 1970, considered the document to be a release deed and determined the stamp duty payable at Rs. 22.50. On getting the Collector's opinion the respondent stamped the instrument as a release deed with Rs. 22.50, and presented the document for registration before the sub-Registr...
V. Rajammal Vs. P. Jesudhas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ378
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. These two Civil Revision Petitions can be dealt with together The short facts are as follows : In O.S. No. 47 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, the appellant herein obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 15,933-75 on a simple mortgage executed by one Thankammal, wife of the 1st defendant, Thankammal died. Hence the suit was filed against her husband, the first defendant, and her legal representatives, defendants 2 to 8. Defendants 9 and 10 were the subsequent encumbrancer. The hypotheca was brought to sale and the plaintiff herself purchased the same on 20th January, 1972, for a sum of Rs. 27,050. The decree-holdcr-plaintiff was allowed to set off the amount due under the decree and therefore a sum of Rs. 10,574 being the balance was deposited into Court. The first defendant filed E-A. No. 98 of 1972 for setting aside the sale. A conditional order was passed requiring him to deposit a certain amount. That conditional order was not complied with. H...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Madras Stock Exchange Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1976
Reported in: [1976]105ITR546(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - This is a common reference in respect of four assessees of whom three are chambers of commerce and the fourth is the Madras Stock Exchange. Though the question that rose for determination of the Tribunal related to the construction of section 2 (15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, still the facts in respect of each case are somewhat different. We would first state the facts with reference to the Andhra Chamber of Commerce and consider the legal issue involved in the light of those facts. We shall thereafter take up the case of each of the other assessees to find out whether the conclusion arrived at in the case of Andhra Chamber of Commerce is applicable to them.Andhra Chamber of Commerce is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and was permitted under section 26 of that Act to omit the word 'limited' from its name by an order of the appropriate Government. The principal objects of the assessee were :(a) To promote and protect trade, commerce and ind...
S.G. Sohanraj Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1976
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas661(Mad)
Natarajan, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition raises an interesting question regarding the inhibition, contained in Section 97 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, to a court taking cognisance of offences under that Act.2. The petitioner was a licensed pawn-broker and also a dealer under the Gold (Control) Act. On October 30, 1972, certain Inspectors of the Central Excise checked the pawn-broker's shop of the petitioner at No. 138/B, Chengalneerodai Street, Big Conjeevaram, and seized gold ornaments weighing 866.800 grams including primary gold of 10.100 grams. Thereafter, the residential premises of the petitioner at No. 138/C, Chengalneerodai Street, was also searched and gold ornaments weighing 721.900 grams were seized. Lastly, the officers visited the licensed shop of the petitioner at 14, Big Kamala Street, Big Conjeevaram, and seized certain accounts. As per accounts, the stock of gold ornaments in the shop should have been 1,870 grams, but when the iron safe in the shop was ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Shajathi (Alias) Jainabi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR738(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This reference has been made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-II, Madras, raising the following question of law: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the department wasnot justified in clubbing the income of the minors with that of the assesseeon the ground that the income did not arise from their admission to thebenefits of partnership and that the profit shares were diverted by an overriding title ?' 2. One Shahul Hameed was carrying on business. He died on 25th May, 1965, leaving eight heirs consisting of his widow, one major son, two minor sons, two major daughters and two minor daughters. After the death of Shahul Hameed, the Several heirs left by him were entitled to' the following shares under the Muslim law : S. M. 'Habibullah (major son)...14 sharesS. S. Kalimullah (minor son)...14 ' Ashrof Ali (minor)...14 ...
Deputy Commissioner (Ct) Vs. K.S.T. Raju Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC457(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. In view of the narrow compass within which the matter lies, it is unnecessary to refer to the facts in detail. Two appeals preferred by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, were dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 15th December, 1967, namely, M.T.A. Nos. 86 of 1967 and 1694 of 1966. Thereafter the assessee preferred two applications-C.T.A. No. 12 of 1970 and C.T.A. No. 13 of 1970. Under Section 36(6) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for reviewing the orders of the Tribunal made in these appeals. The Tribunal by its common order dated 29th April, 1971, reviewed its earlier orders, dismissed one application for review and allowed the other application in part. It is against the order of the Tribunal allowing C.T.A. No. 12 of 1970 in part, the present revision has been filed purporting to be under Section 38(1) of the Act.2. As soon as the learned Additional Gover...
S.C. Sohanraj Vs. the Asst. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ428
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition raises an interesting question regarding the inhibition, contained in Section 97 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, to a court taking cognisance of offences under that Act.2. The petitioner was a licensed pawn broker and also a dealer under the Gold (Control) Act. On 30-10-1972, certain Inspectors of the Central Excise checked the pawn broker's shop of the petitioner at No. 138-B Chengalaneerodai St., Big Conjeevaram and seized gold ornaments weighing 866.800 grams including primary gold of 10,100 grams. Thereafter, the residential premises of the petitioner at No. 138-C Chengalaneerodai St. was also searched and gold ornaments weighing 721.900 grams were seized. Lastly, the officers visited the licensed shop of the petitioner at No. 14 Big Kamala St., Big Conjeevaram, and seized certain accounts. As per accounts, the stock of gold ornaments in the shop should have been 1870 grams, but when the iron safe in the shop was opened, it...
Basheer Ahamed Khan and anr. Vs. T.M. Krishna Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad55
ORDER1. Though no doubt the petitioners before me who are the tenants can successfully challenge the order of the appellate authority for the reason that the appellate authority relied on a decision which has since been overruled by this court, yet the case has taken a different turn in the course of the proceedings and therefore it has become necessary for me to state a few facts. The landlord sought for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that he wanted the premises in his occupation for his own non-residential purposes. The landlord's case was that he was expanding his business and therefore there was necessity for the request. It is a common ground however that the landlord was carrying on a business of his own in a building of his own. The Rent Controller would not grant the request. But the appellate authority relied upon a decision of this court in Abdul Khader v. Hussain Ali, : (1962)2MLJ446 and Nataraja Asari v. Balasubramaniam : (1957)2MLJ492 . These have been overruled...
H.C. Khanna Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR373(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, and the question of law referred for the opinion of this court runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sums payable under the Parry & Company Ltd. Staff Pension and Insurance Scheme is includible in the principal value of the estate ?'2. The reference arises consequent on the demise of one Mr. Killick, who was a senior staff official of Parry & Company Ltd. He died on 13th April, 1963. Parry & Co. Ltd. had created a trust fund by a deed dated 7th December, 1955, for making provision for the employees on retirement or for their dependants in the event of death, by way of assurances on the lives of the employees. The arrangement was called the Parry & Co. Ltd. Executive Staff Pension and Assurance Scheme. The scheme was effective from 1st January, 1955. Th...
Muthusamy Gounder Vs. A.P. Kaithamalai Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ373
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 515 of 1971 is the plaintiff herein. The respondent herein who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 515 of 1971 filed in I.A. No. 1236 of 1974 under Order 26, Rules 13 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint a Commissioner to divide the suit property in accordance with the preliminary decree and to pass a final decree. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the plaintiff-respondent herein wanted appointment of a Commissioner to divide the suit property which consists of a rice mill and an open space or to sell it in auction. The petitioner herein in the counter-statement filed for I.A. No. 1236 of J974 inter alia contended that the suit property is easily divisible into two equal portions or at least approximately equal portions and as such there is no need to sell the suit property in auction.2. The trial Court took up for determination as to whether the suit property can be conveniently divided into two equal shares by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »