Chennai Court October 1979 Judgments
Dr. Cherian Vs. P. Ramasami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ170
P. Venugopal, J.1. The Appellant before this Court is the Court auction-purchaser. Respondents 1 and 2 are the judgment-debtors and the third respondent is the decree-holder. The third respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 100 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, on a hundi executed by respondents 1 and 2(husband and wife) and obtained a decree on 20th June, 1968 for a sum of Rs. 9,777. 70. The third respondent filed E. P. No. 248 of 1968 for attachment and sale of the house belonging to the second respondent situated in Coimbatore. The property was attached and even while the execution petition was pending, the third respondent filed another execution petition E. P. No. 42 of 1969 for attachment, and sale of lands belonging to the first respondent in Selakarichal village, Palladam taluk. The properties were brought to sale and as there was no bidder, the execution petition was dismissed on 29th June, 1970 and the attachment was allowed to continue for a period of six months fr...
Tag this Judgment!Vasavambal Vs. Chenniappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ207
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The landlady, who succeeded before the Rent Controller and lost before the appellate authority, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which arises out of an application filed by her for an order of eviction against the respondent under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act According to the case of the petitioner, the premises in the possession of the respondent was leased out to him on 14th March, 1971, on a monthly rent of Rs. 40. The rents in respect of the premises were not paid by the respondent from 14th March, 1974. Thereupon, the petitioner issued a notice on 7th August, 1976, terminating the tenancy of the respondent and in spite of repeated demands according to the petitioner the respondent had not paid the rents and had thus committed wilful default, which would entitle her to obtain an order of eviction against him. In addition, the petitioner also claimed that since she is an old woman wi...
Tag this Judgment!Mookammal Vs. Chitravadivammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad243
1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Principal, Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, who allowed an appeal and decreed a suit for partition filed by a daughter as against the purchaser of the property described as a dwelling house of the family. The defence of the purchaser was that the plaintiff as the female member of the family cannot ask for partition of the dwelling house in view of the special provision in Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This found favour with the trial court which apparently overlooked the fact that it was the male member who was the other half sharer who sold the dwelling house to a third party. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Principal Subordinate Judge reversed the judgment and held that the suit was maintainable and granted a preliminary decree for partition.2. Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 appearing in the chain of sections of the codified Hindu Law in intended to respect one of the ancient Hindu...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.K. Subbaraya Chetty and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1979
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Mad)252; [1980]123ITR592(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The questions referred in both these cases are identical and runs as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be invoked to add back the discount allowed by the assessee to M/s. Somasundaram and Brothers?'2. It is enough if we set out the facts relating to T.C. No. 28 of 1976 as in the relevant appellate order giving rise to the other reference, the Tribunal merely followed the appellate order annexed in T.C. No. 28 of 1976.3. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of silk cloth at Arni. There were five partners in this firm, namely, (i) Thiagarajan, (ii) Jagadeesan, (iii) Balasundaram, (iv) Alagesan and (v) Smt. Pattammal, each having an equal share. The first four are bothers and Srat. Pattammal is their mother. There was another firm known as M/s. SomasUndaram and Brothers at Ami consisting of Alagesan, one of the partners of the as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.K. Kaimal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR755(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the sum of Rs. 15,847 as profits chargeable to tax under Section 41(4) in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained ? 2. Whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 41(4), it has been rightly held that the assessee in whose hands bad debt had been allowed and the person who had recovered the bad debts subsequently should be the same person so as to invoke the provisions of Section 41(4) ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the bad debt recovered by the assessee-partner allowed as a deduction in the hands of the firm cannot be deemed to be the profits chargeable to tax under Section 41(4) especially when the same business was continued to be carried on by the partner?' 2. The assessee is an individual carrying on business in distr...
Tag this Judgment!Sathyamangalam Co-operative Urban Bank, Limited Vs. the Deputy Registr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ17
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. All the above writ petitions have been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the common judgment rendered by the District Judge of Coimbatore East at Erode (Tribunal constituted under Section 96 of the Co-operative Societies Act) in the appeals preferred by the former office-bearers (President, Secretary and the Treasurer) and the other directors of the Satyamangalam Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Sathyamangalam (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) in C.M.A. Nos. 111, 112, 125 and 146 to 151 of 1974 on his file, allowing the said appeals in part and dismissing them in other respects. Writ Petitions Nos. 104 to 109 and 111 of 1977 are filed by the Bank against the allowance in Part of C, M. A. Nos. ,147, 149, 150, 151, 146, 125 and 148 respectively of 1974 : Writ Petitions Nos. 696 to 701 of 1977 are individually filed by the different directors of the Bank viz., Thiruvalargal Arumugam, Ramachandran, Muthuswami, Narayanaswami, Govindaraj...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Saraswathi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1979
Reported in: [1982]133ITR315(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The following two questions have been referred:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the dividend income received by the assessee on the bonus shares cannot be included in the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 64(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the dividend received by the assessee's minor daughter in respect of the bonus shares cannot be said to be income arising from an asset transferred by the assessee directly or indirectly to her minor daughter within the meaning of Section 64(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. On 22nd September, 1960, the assessee gifted to her minor daughter 10,000 shares in Rajendra Mills Ltd. During the course of the year ending March 31, 1969, Rajendra Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Narasimha Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1979
Reported in: [1981]129ITR589(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The following question has been referred ;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is disentitled from carrying forward the development rebate of the earlier years to the extent of Rs. 1,77,077 as held by the Income-tax Officer or to the extent of Rs. 1,06,773 as held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal '2. This reference relates to the' assessment year 1963-64. The assessee was incurring losses up to the assessment year 1962-63. It had installed plant and machinery and was eligible for the grant of allowance for development rebate on the said plant and machinery. Since the assessee had incurred losses, no deduction could be allowed in regard to the development rebate in the earlier years and, therefore, the amounts due for allowance as and by way of development rebate were carried forward as follows:Assessment year Development rebate carried forwardRs...
Tag this Judgment!Arkay's National Engineering and Foundry Co. Vs. the State of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC394(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These two appeals, T. C. Nos. 205 and 218 of 1976, arise from the order of the Board of Revenue dated 22nd October, 1974, relating to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1969-70. The assessee purchased M. S. steel rounds and bars locally paying local sales tax thereon. The engineering industry requires straight steel rods of uniform diameter. The assessee therefore draws the rods purchased by it through special machine dies made for that purpose. Before rods can be inserted into the dies and drawn by the use of the machines the ends have to be pointed and cut. This results in M. S. bar cuttings which are disposed of periodically to avoid accumulation. In respect of the assessment year 1967-68 the assessing officer included in the taxable turnover of the assessee a sum of Rs. 9,949.87 relating to these cuttings. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner contending that these sales of cuttings are only second sales of declared goods falling un...
Tag this Judgment!G. Muthukrishnan Vs. the Administrative Manager, New Horizon Sugar Mil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ67
ORDERThe following notification and the annexure shall be published in the next issue of the Official Gazette.Whereas the Government are of the opinion that an Industrial Dispute has arisen between the Management of M/s. New Horizon Sugar Mills Pte. Ltd, Ariyur, Pondicherry, and its workmen in respect of the matter mentioned in the Annexure to this Order;And whereas in the opinion of the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory (i) Pondicherry it is necessary, to refer the said dispute for adjudication Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(Central Act XIV of 1947) the Lt. Governor. Pondicherry, hereby directs that the said dispute be referred to the Labour Court, Pondicherry, for adjudication.Annexure : 'Whether the non-employment of Thiru C. Muthukrishnan is justified and if not to what relief he is entitled? to compute the relief, if any, awarded in terms of money if it can be so computed.' (...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »