Chennai Court December 1979 Judgments
Kanhailan Chandak Vs. R. Mohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ234
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 6958 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the XI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras is the revision petitioner. The respondent-defendant is said to have borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,000 on 5th June, 1970, and later on the same day he is said to have executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the amount borrowed earlier. The defendant is said to have borrowed a further sum of Rs. 1,000 as a hand-loan on 10th September, 1970. The suit has been filed on the debt for the recovery of the amount.2. In the plaint itself it is stated that the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is insufficiently stamped. 3. The defendant inter alia denied the borrowing and also contended that the suit was not maintainable as the promissory note was insufficiently stamped.4. The trial Court raised as many as four issues, the main issue being issue No. 1 which relates to the question whether t...
Tag this Judgment!Arumugathammal and anr. Vs. Gomathi Ammal and Ten ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ260
P. Venugopal, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants before this Court. The plaintiff has filed the suit in forma pauperis for a declaration and partition of her half share in the plaint schedule properties and for mesne pro-fits. The suit properties belonged to one Rajammal alias Arumugathammal. Arumugathammal's husband is Punnavanam Pillai. The plaintiff is the sister of the said Punnavanam Pillai, and the first defendant is his brother. The second defendant is the sister's daughter of Arumugathammal. The third defendant is the brother's son of the said Arumugathammal. Defendants 4 to 7 and 9 to 12 are the tenants in the suit properties. The plaintiff's case is that after the death of Arumugathammal, defendants 2 and 3, alleging that Arumugathammal, bequeathed the suit properties in their favour forcibly entered into possession of the plaint first and second Schedule properties and have carried away some of the movables mentioned in the plaint third schedule, and the alleged will...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. N.L.S.V. Lakshmanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1979
Reported in: [1982]134ITR677(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. At the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, the following question has been referred to this court under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the exemption provided in Section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, should be allowed in respect of the dwelling house of the Hindu undivided family from the value of the joint family properties before determining the share of the deceased and also that the lineal descendants, the former for assessment and the latter for aggregation '2. One Sivalinga Chettiar died on November 18, 1966. He was the owner of certain assets, whose value came to Rs. 22,333. He was also a coparcener in an HUF consisting of himself, his wife and an adopted son. The assets belonging to this family comprised the following items :Rs. 1.General1,15,5142.Residential house property1,40,000 ----------2,55,5143.Agricultural lands36,8404.1/3 s...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. M.P. Gnanambal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1979
Reported in: [1982]136ITR103(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is the owner of the properties situated at 26/110, Raja Street, and 325, Rangai Gowder Street, Coimbatore, within the meaning of Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sustaining the inclusion of the rental income from the properties in the assessments made on the assessee for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69 to 1970-71 ?'2. There was one A. K. Krishna Iyer, who had a prosperous business in running hotels. On 19th October, 1963, he executed a will creating a life estate in favour of his wife, Thirumathi M. P. Gnanambal, with regard to the properties now under consideration. The question which arose before the ITO was, whether on the occupation of the properties by her sons free of rent, as contemplated by the will, she was liable to be as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Aruna Sizing Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Mad)329; [1981]127ITR186(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax :' (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of loss on the sale of machinery under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and (2) Whether the Tribunal's view, that the requirements of the provisions of Section 32(1)(iii) are met when the assessee showed the saleproceeds in their books, is sustainable in law (and on the materials on record) ' 2. The assessee is a firm assessed for the assessment year 1969-70. The relevant previous year ended on 4th September, 1968. Among the machinery used by the assessee, there was a sizing machine the written down value of which was Rs. 40,526 at the beginning of the year. This machine was sold during the year for a sum of Rs. 29,500 resulting in a loss of Rs. 11,026, if the written down value is the criterion. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Vs. Palaniappa Transports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)17CTR(Mad)325; [1980]124ITR634(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In T.C. No. 191 of 1976, which relates to the assessment year 1966-67, the following question has been referred to this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in determining the quantum of penalty leviable under Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the assessee's case the annuity deposit that was payable by the unregistered firm for the assessment year 1966-67 should be taken into consideration ?'2. In T.C. No. 400 of 1976, which relates to the assessment year 1965-66, the question referred runs as follows:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in determining the quantum of penalty leviable under Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the assessee's case the annuity deposit that was payable by the unregistered firm for the assessment year 1965-66 should be taken into consideration ?'3. The question for each year is thus identical except, for the year.4. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in op...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue Chepauk and the Authorised Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ16
Ismail, C.J.1. The point involved in this Writ appeal is directly covered by a decision of this Court to which one of us was a party, in Vadivel Servai v. Land Commissioner Board of Revenue (L.R.) Madras-5 and Ors. W.A. Nos. 129 to 135 of 1976 dated 13th July, 1978. The question that was considered was whether a person who had not filed an application within the last date fixed by the Authorised Officer calling for applications for assignment of surplus lands as provided for in Rule 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Disposal of Surplus Land) Rules and who filed an application after the said date is entitled to the assignment of lands. The Bench in the decision referred to above has held that the Rule itself has obliged the Authorised Officer to fix a last date for receipt of applications and any application received after the expiry of the last date cannot be considered by the Authorised Officer. In the present case Ramanujam, J. has held that notwithstanding the fact that the respo...
Tag this Judgment!P. Nachimuthu Mudaliar Vs. M. Ponnuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ529
V. Ratnam, J.1. This civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein (landlord) against the orders of the Courts below in an application filed by the respondent (tenant) under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the case of the respondent, the property in question viz., a vacant site belonged to the petitioner by purchase on 28th January, 1974, from one Sundaravelu and his minor son. The respondent claimed to have taken a lease of the vacant land from one Muthuswami Mudaliar and his son Sundaravelu on 21st April, 1968, for a period of five years. After obtaining the lease, the respondent stated that he had put up a tiled shed on the west and a pandal on the east and that in the tiled portion he has been carrying on business in firewood. In that process, according to the respondent, he had expended a sum of Rs. 3,000. While so, disputes arose between Sundaravelu and one of his relations Ratnammal ...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugha Boopathi and ors. Vs. Periannan Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ318
ORDERP. Venugopal, J.1. The minor petitioners through their mother the next friend, are the appellants before this Court. They filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their l/10th share in the suit properties, alleging that they have no means to pay the Court fees, and they should be permitted to file the suit in forma pauperis. The respondents contended that the suit properties have already been divided between the ancestors of the parties by decree of Court and from the date of partition they are in separate possession and enjoyment of their own shares, and that the petitioners have no cause of action for fling the suit in forma pauperis. The trial Court held that from the decree passed in O.S. No. 17 of 1896 it is clear that the family properties have been already divided by metes and bounds so early as 1896 and the petitioners have no right in the family properties and they have no cause of action for filing the suit and it is also barred by res judicata by virtue of ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central) Vs. G. Savithri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1979
Reported in: [1983]141ITR697(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Tribunal dealt with two wealth-tax appeals for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. Against the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1968-69, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax has come up on reference, on the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Section 18(1)(a) as amended by Clause 24(6) of the Finance Act, 1969, should not be applied to reckonthe penalty for the period of default after 1-4-1969 for the assessment year 1968-69?'2. The facts relating to this question are as follows :3. The assessee, a cine-artist, should have filed a wealth-tax return for the year 1968-69 by 30th June, 1968. She, however, filed the return only on 23rd March, 1970. The Wealth-tax Officer completed the assessment on 27th April, 1970, and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act, for delay in submission of return. The assessee gave an explanation that she...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »