Chennai Court March 1980 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. Engine Valves Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Mad)274; [1980]126ITR347(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The question referred to us for decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in this reference by way of case stated under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relates to the rate of depreciation allowance on a canteen building inside the precincts o a factory run by the assessee, Messrs. Engine Valves Ltd., Madras. The assessee manufacture engines valves, which are components of internal combustion engines, in a factory of its own. In the account year ended March 31, 1972, relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee claimed depreciation allowance at the rate of 10 per cent. on the written down value of the canteen building. There was no dispute that the building was a second class building. The ITO, however, granted depreciation allowance only at the rate of 5%. He rejected the claim of the assessee that the canteen building must be regarded as a factory building and was entitled to a doubling of the ordinary rate of depreciation eligible for se...
Kalyani Sundaram Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty-i, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Mad)201; [1980]126ITR615(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These are two writ petitions with a common prayer for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order of the Asst. Controller, the first respondent, dated January 25, 1975, refusing to revise the order, dated January 27, 1970, and also to direct the Asst. Controller by a mandamus to finally communicate to the WTO concerned that there would be nil assessment as for as the petitioner's share in the 'controlled company' is concerned and give such other directions or orders as may be fit and proper. There was an estate duty assessment consequent on the death of Sri Anantharamakrishnan, a well-known industrialist of this part of the country. He died intestate in Madras on April 18, 1964, leaving behind him his widow by name Valli, his two sons by name Sivasailam and Krishnamoorthy and two daughters, Kalyani and Seetha. The present writ petitions have been filed by the husband and power-of-attorney agent of Kalyani, the first daughter. It i...
P.S. Mohana Srinivasan Vs. Girija
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ321
T. Sathiadev, J.1. The appellant was the petitioner in O. P. No. 478 of 1973 filed before VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras. It was a petition filed by him under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of the marriage by a decree of nullity on the ground that his wife was already pregnant by some one other than the petitioner even before the marriage.2. In the petition he claimed that the marriage with Girija, the respondent herein took place on 8th February, 1973 at Ambur and before the marriage, his relations bad gone to see her is her father's house and she wag a having a slightly prominent abdomen, but his relations were told that her constitution was such and that nothing was wrong with her. He had not known her before marriage and had no occasion to meet her. Betrothal took place on 18th December, 1972 and after marriage, he was living with her in a separate house at Madras for just a month and within three months of marriage on 12th May, 1973, she complained...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. Sm. M. Muthappa Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1980
Reported in: [1983]139ITR396(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - The following question has been propounded by the Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the deduction of Rs. 25,655 in computing the total income ?'The assessee is a firm consisting of two partners, SM. M. Muthappa Chettiar and SM.KR. Karuppan Chettiar, who are sons of one Somasundaram Chettiar. They belong to the former Indian State of Pudukottai and hailed from a village known as Nachiarpuram. Somasundaram had a brother by name Chockalingam Chettiar, who started a business in money-lending in Ipoh. Somasundaram joined the said business as a partner. In the partnership, Chockalingam had 5/8ths share and Somasundaram 3/8ths share. This firm was brought into existence under the terms of an instrument of partnership dated May 9, 1921. The two brothers had an uncle by name Vaduganathan Chettiar who became a sub-partner with Somasundara...
Rajagopal Pillai Vs. the Sub-collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ447
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The petitioner, a former village karnam, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for calling for the records of the Government of Tamil Nadu (the fourth respondent) relating to G.O.Ms. No. 5747, Revenue Department, dated 15th September, 1973 and issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order, to quash the said Government Order. This petition was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Ramanujam and Ratnavel Pandian, JJ. But, on account of the Division Bench doubting the correctness of the ratio in Manickam v. State of Tamil Nadu W.A. No. 260 of 1975, dated 16-2-1976, the matter has been posted before this specially constituted Full Bench 'for an authoritative ruling on the point'.2. The petitioner was the village karnam of Sevalur in Manapparai taluk in Tiruchirapalli District. In a disciplinary enquiry against him with reference to certain charges, the Sub- Collector, Karur (the first respondent) held the charg...
Commissioner of Income-tax Tamil Nadu-i Vs. M. Ramalakshmi Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Mad)270; [1981]131ITR415(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. In this reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question of law had been referred for our opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 37,770 received by the assessee from the two concerns for sale of water is casual and non-recurring receipt and did not arise from business or the exercise of a profession or occupation by the assessee and, therefore, exempt from taxation under section 10(3) of the Income-tax Act ?' 2. The Tribunal, in their stated case, have given us a vivid account of the circumstances in which the receipt in question came about. The assessee in the case is Mrs. Ramalakshmi Reddy. She was the owner of a nine-ground plot of land in Kodambakkam, Madras. She applied to the Corporation of Madras for approval of her plan to constru...
Rani Leela Kumari and ors. Vs. J. Zamberlal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad29
1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 1907 of 1971, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants. The first plaintiff died after filing the suit and plaintiffs 2 to 6 are his legal representatives and it is they who are the appellants herein. The first Plaintiff Pledged with the defendant, a pawn broker, valuable jewels described in the pawn ticket No. A. 6685 dated 22-3-1970, as security for a loan of Rs. 30,000 taken on that day. On 25-4-1970 the first plaintiff paid to the defendant a sum of Rs. 11,000. and the same was endorsed and acknowledged by the defendant on the pawn ticket itself. There was thus a balance of Rs. 19,000, which had to be repaid with interest at 12% per annum. The first plaintiff claimed that he approached the defendant to pay the sum of Rs. 19,000, with interest, but the defendant refused to deliver the jewels to him and to receive the amount from him. The first plaintiff, therefore, came forward with the suit for redemption of the pledged jewels o...
L.M. Van Moppes Diamond Tools India Limited Vs. Government of India, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS223D
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on Thursday, the 28th day of February, 1980 and on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 28.10.1977 and made herein, and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order No. 3228 of 1975, dated 23.9.1975, of the first respondent comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. Dulip Singh for M/s. King and Partridge, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. U.N.R. Rao, Senior Central Government Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents, the court made the following order:The petitioner is a manufacturer of synthetic Diamond Tools and Wheels. The petitioner's factory was originally at Madras and now at Coonoor. They imported a consignment of Synthetic Diamond Grits bearing parcel No. 12052/72 from the United Kingdom of the value of 2653-21 unde...
Rani Leela Kumari and ors. Vs. J. Zamberlal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ47
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1907 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants. The first plaintiff died after filing the suit and plaintiffs 2 to 6 are his legal representatives and it is they, who are the appellants herein. The first plaintiff pledged with the defendant, a pawn broker, valuable jewels described in the pawn ticket No. A-6685 dated 22nd March, 1970 as security for a loan of Rs. 30,000 taken on that day. On 25th April, 1970 the first plaintiff paid to the defendant a sum of Rs. 11,000 and the same was endorsed and acknowledged by the defendant on the pawn ticket itself. There was thus a balance of Rs. 19,000 which had to be repaid with interest at 12% per annum. The first plaintiff claimed that he approached the defendant to pay the sum of Rs. 19,000 with interest, but the defendant refused to deliver the jewels to him and to receive the amount from him. The first plaintiff, therefore, came forward with the suit for redemptio...
C.S. Selvaraj Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1980
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ514
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to promote the petitioner in the eleventh rank in the list prepared by the third respondent.2. The petitioner was recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police in November, 1950. He was promoted as Inspector of Police on 30th May, 1968. The next higher post is the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Inspectors of Police are eligible for recruitment by transfer as Deputy Superintendents of Police. The petitioner became eligible for considering his name for appointment as the Deputy Superintendent of Police with reference to his qualifications even as early as 1972. Though there were certain recruitments between 1972 and 1976, the petitioner was not aggrieved, as those who were recruited during that period were all seniors to him. The method of recruitment by transfer is provided in Police 'Stand-in' Order 14(A). As per this Order, the Superintendents under whom the Inspector of Poli...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »