Chennai Court March 1979 Judgments
D. Nataraja Achari Vs. Balambal Animal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad222
1. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal, which arises out of the final decree proceedings in a suit for partition instituted by the first respondent herein in 0. S. No. 2423 of 1961, on the file of the learned 5th Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The facts are not in dispute. The first respondent instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of in S/4 share in the mentioned the schedule to the plaint or in the alternative for a society thereof and also for an account of the income collected by the appellant and for the appointment of Receiver and other incidental reliefs. By a preliminary decree dated 24-12-1968, the first respondent herein was granted a decree for partition in respect of a half share of the suit property and clause (2) of the preliminary decree provided that, the first respondent shall also be at liberty to apply for the ascertainment of the income from the property and the allotment of her share therein.There ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Deghamwala Estates
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)284; [1980]121ITR684(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The following common question has been referred under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1968-69 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it hasbeen rightly held by the Appellate Tribunal that the Income-tax Officerwas not justified in assessing the assessee in the status of body of individuals '2. For the assessment year 1965-66 the accounting year ended on November 4, 1964. T. M. Sidhpurwala and T. M. Badruddin Mohammed Ali sold on February 28, 1964, the property bearing No. 12/13, Angappa Naicken Street, Madras, for a consideration of Rs. 12,000. On 12th October, 1964, the two brothers along with three others sold certain house sites in survey No. 4 at Sidhpur in Mehsana District of Gujarat for Rs. 24,628'04. The ITO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 42,084 as long-term capital gains, after giving a deduction of Rs. 5,000 being the statutory exemption in respect of the above transactions. The assessment was made in th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Hilal Vs. Appellate Controller of Estate Duty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR61(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent (Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Southern Zone,Madras) dated 31st March, 1975, levying a penalty of Rs. 34,000 under Section 60(1)(c) of the E. D. Act, 1953, for concealing the particulars of the property of the deceased and deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof.2. The petitioner's father, one G.S.A. Kareem, died in or about December, 1970. Even before his death, on March 1, 1970, he had executed a settlement deed in favour of his son and daughter, in respect of house sites in 14, Balakrishna Pillai Road, Teynampet, Madras, also known as 85-A, Mount Road, Madras-18. The petitioner herein, as an accountable person, filed a return to the Asst. CED in respect of the properties left by the deceased. In the return filed by him, he gave the value of the property at No. 85-A, Mount Road, Madras-18, as Rs. 1,72,600. This value was returned on the basis of the approved valuer's report f...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Ramasubramania Raja Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: [1980]121ITR879(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. These are revision petitions filed under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act ', to revise the order of the Board of Revenue dated 14th December, 1974, for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The assessee had 53.87 standard acres during the previous assessment years. During the year 1968, he purchased 1998 ordinary acres and disposed of 34.35 ordinary acres by way of gift to his minor daughters and mother, and also by way of sale to three persons. After deducting the lands, which were given away by the assessee by way of gift and which were sold, and after adding the lands purchased by him, he had 40.19 standard acres. He applied under Section 65(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act for permission to compound the agricultural income-tax payable by him and to pay in lieu thereof a lump sum at the rates specified in the Schedule to the Act. The Agrl. ITOaccepted the compounding application as in ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S. Shanmughanatha Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR80(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These appeals have been filed under Section 269H of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), in respect of an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals filed by the transferor as well as the transferee against the orders of the IAC of Income-tax acquiring certain property under Section 269F(6) on the ground that there has been an undervaluation in selling the property by the transferor to the transferee.2. Premises No. 7, Ratnaswamy Nadar Road, Chockilulam, Madurai, was sold under a sale deed dated May 31, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 90,000 by one Shanmuganatha Nadar to one Prabhu. Treating the said value as one given for evading tax, the IAC took proceedings under Chap. XX-A of the Act. The order of acquisition was passed under Section 269F(6) after giving notice to both the transferor and the transferee and after hearing their objections. The said order of acquisition was taken in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given three ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Evalappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ450Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. The respondent herein was working as agent at the Coonoor branch of the appellant-Bank, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, since 1968. The Bank was nationalised in the year 1969 by virtue of the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969, which was later on replaced by an Act of the same name in 1970. On 13th June, 1970, the respondent was suspended from service and an enquiry was initiated against him in respect of eight irregularities, contained in the memo of charges dated 4th December, 1970. The respondent submitted his explanation on 29th January, 1971. He was given a personal hearing by the Secretary of the Bank on 26th May, 1972. Ultimately, the Board issued to him a notice dated 19th August, 1972, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. With that notice were enclosed four reports prepared by the investigating officers on the 13th of May, 1970, 27th of May, 1970, 15th of ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Velluswamy Vs. the Inspector-general of Police and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ266
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner who was a Detective Inspector till March, 1976 was suspended from service pending enquiry on certain charges. On 15th March, 1976 a set of three charges had been framed against him. A disciplinary enquiry followed and ultimately the petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by the second respondent. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of punishment to the Inspector-General of Police, the first respondent herein. The said appeal having failed, the petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order of punishment passed by the original authority as affirmed by the appellate authority.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised various grounds which according to him go to the root of the matter, and if the grounds urged by him are accepted, the order of punishment would stand vitiated. The learned Counsel generally points out the various defects at t...
Tag this Judgment!D. Nataraja Achari Vs. Balambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ234
V. Ratnam, J.1. The 1st defendant in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal which arises out of the final decree proceedings in a suit for partition instituted by the first respondent herein in O S. No. 2423 of 1961, on the file of the learned 5th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The facts are not in dispute. The first respondent instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of her 3/4 share in the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint or in the alternative for a moiety thereof and also for an account of the income collected by the appellant and for the appointment of Receiver and other incidental reliefs. By a preliminary decree dated 24th December, 1963, the first respondent herein was granted a decree for partition in respect of a half share of the suit property and Clause (2) of the preliminary decree provided that the first respondent shall also be at liberty to apply for the ascertainment of the income from the property and the allotmen...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jainulaludden and ors. Vs. K.P. Jainulaludden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1979
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ332
M.M. Ismail, J.1. These two writ appeals are directed against the common judgment of Ramanujam, J., dated 25th September, 1975, in W. P. Nos. 2938 and 4423 of 1975. The matter relates to a Wakf in Aravakurichi. The appellants herein filed an application before the State Wakf Board under Section 14 of the Wakf Act, 1954(Central Act XXIX of 1954) hereinafter (referred to as the Act) for conducting an enquiry into the administration and management of the Wakf. The respondents herein were the Trustees in management of the Wakf. The respondents herein took up an objection that the appellants herein were not 'persons interested' as defined in the Act and that therefore they were not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Wakf Board under Section 44 sincs the Section enables only a 'person interested in a wakf' to make an application to the Board. The Board, by its order, dated 8th March, 1975, overruled this preliminary objection raised by the respondents herein and held that the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Municipality Vs. C.G. Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad130
1. The defendant in O-S. No. 1417 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that -the levy of fees by the defendant at Rs. 2.50 per day in respect of stall No. 164 in the occupation of the plaintiff in Tyagi Kumaran Market at Coimbatore is illegal and void, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Municipality and its subordinates from collecting the said enhanced fees from the plaintiff in respect of the said stall Rs. 164 and for costs of suit.2. The plaint allegations are as follows: The respondent herein is the occupier of Stall No. 1,64 in Thyagi Kumaran Market in Coimbatore, town, which is a public market run by the Coimbatore Municipality. The respondent-plaintiff is one of the earliest occupies in the said market, having come there over 25 years prior to suit. What was originally rented to the plaintiff was only an area of vacant ground without any s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »