Chennai Court November 1981 Judgments
S.S.S.A. Vivekanandam Vs. S.V. Kamala Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ212
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The petitioner before me is the tenant of a building from which he was ordered to be evicted by an order of the Rent Controller. This order has been sustained in appeal and thereafter in revision by this Court. The landlord sought to execute the order of eviction) by filing an execution petition before that Rent Controller under Section 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act). The execution petition was opposed by the tenat on the score that the order of eviction itself was nullity. The contention was based on the nature of the lease. According to the tenant, he was inducted into the tenancy of the building under a registered lease deed, dated 14th June, 1967, under which he was to be a lessee in possession for a fixed term of 21 years. The contention was that in respect of a lease for a term of years there cannot be any proceedings for termination of the tenancy or eviction o...
Tag this Judgment!R.V. Appaswamy Vs. Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Kovilpatti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ219
ORDERS. Nainar Sundram, J.1. The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LIII of 1961)(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). All the proceedings under the Act upto Chapter VI of the Act have been completed. Even the determination of amount for the land acquired by the Government has been done by the respondent. By order, dated 15th October, 1975, he determined the amount payable for the land acquired at Rs. 19,049-64p. It is admitted that the preparation and publication of the draft assessment roll and then the final assessment roll pursuant to such determination have also been completed and the amount payable for land acquired has also been disbursed. Practically, after the lapse of 3 years and 5 months, the respondent has proposed to take action under Section 50(9) of the Act. In the impugned notice, dated 29th March, 1979, under Section 50(9) of the Act, the respondent has stated that the surplus lands acquired under the Act remained waste...
Tag this Judgment!iqbal and Company, by Its Partner, A. Mohamed Hassim Vs. Abdul Rahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ221
S. Mohan, J.1. This is a very hard case and as the saying goes 'hard case makes bad law'. Both these revisions can be dealt with under a common order. The respondent herein filed H.R.C. No. 3328 of 1978 for eviction of the revision petitioner on three grounds, namely:1. He wilfully defaulted in payment of rent for the period from 1st July, 1977 to 31st October, 1978;2. For personal occupation; and3. For demolition and reconstruction.While that application was pending, the respondent took out M.P. No. 404 of 1980 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act contending that the admitted rent had not been paid into Court and therefore the counter of the respondent in H.R.C. No. 3328 of 1978 could not be entertained. By an order, dated 22nd August, 1980, the Rent Controller allowed that petition and directed the revision petitioner to pay the respondent herein the rent due from 1st November, 1977 till date at the rate of Rs. 500 per month on or before 5th Se...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Express (Madurai) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR583(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This is a case stated by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. 2. The facts as found by the Tribunal show that the assessee-company had set aside Rs. 1,02,995 from out of the profits from the year ended April 30, 1971, as and towards an account called 'Reserve for doubtful debts'. The assessee claimed that for the purpose of computing its capital as on May 1, 1971, this amount must be regarded as a reserve. The ITO rejected this claim. He held that the amount only represented 'a provision against anticipated loss or liability'. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the amount credited to this account was a reserve and must be taken as part of the company's capital, subject only to the officer verifying a matter of detail, namely, whether a sum of Rs. 14,482 can be included in that account. 3. The present reference before us is at the instance of the Department on the following questing of law : 'Whether, on the facts and i...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Apsara Talkies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1981
Reported in: [1985]155ITR303(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. In this reference, by way of case stated, the question for our consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling a penalty of Rs. 1,01,000 levied on an assessee by an IAC under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 2. The assessee in question is a firm of four partners. They run a cinema theatre in Vellore. The theatre was built from the firm's funds. The partnership accounts disclosed the expenses of construction at Rs. 4,41,284. The ITO obtained an independent estimate of the construction cost of the theatre from his Departmental Valuer. That estimate put the figure at Rs. 5,67,300. Relying on the valuer's estimate, the officer held that the theatre must have cost more to build than was shown in the accounts. He further held that the expenses not shown in the accounts must have come out of some source of income not disclosed by the assessee to the Department. On the same basis, the IAC later imposed a penalty on the assessee under s. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. Imperial Automobiles
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)32; [1983]141ITR60(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This reference concerns the correctness of a decision by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cancelling a penalty levied in this case under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question of law we are asked to consider is in the following terms : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 9,200 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 1968-69 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm of three partners. The firm carries on business in automatic spare parts. The firm filed a return for the assessment year 1968-69 disclosing an income of Rs. 26,740. In the course of the examination of the firm's books of account the ITO found that there were credit entries on various dated amounting in all to Rs. 8,000 in the name of one Sundari Bai. She is the wife of a partner in the assessee-firm. T...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Prakasam Readymade Store ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR601(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This tax case raises the question whether, in the events that happened, the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in canceling a penalty which had been levied on an assessee for concealment of income under s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in readymade garments. In it books for the account year, relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, there were entries to show that the assessee had borrowed money on hundis from a number of Multani bankers. The assessee produced the discharged hundi papers in support of the genuineness of the transactions. The ITO, however, was disposed to reject this evidence, for two reasons. One was that the hundis had not been discounted by the lenders with scheduled banks. The other was that the lenders were notaries for indulging in havala transactions, that is to say, transactions which made it appear on fabricated evidence that here were loans advanced by them and repaid to them, wit...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Employees Association and anr. Vs. St ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ413Mad
1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for the issued of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from agreeing and/or approving, and/or ratifying the refund of the sum of Rs. 50,46,116-27 from the 'State Bank of Bikaner & Jaiyur Employees Provident Fund Account' to the second respondent, to be passed by a resolution at a meeting proposed to be held on 20-9-1976 or on any other date on the said alleged ground that the said amount was paid by mistake in violation of Regulation 12(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Employees Provident Fund Regulations, 1969, framed under S. 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act 38 of 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The facts on the basis of which the above prayer has been projected, run as follows : The first petitioner is an association of the employees of the second respondent and it is being represented by its President, who is also an employee of the second respondent, working at its Madras Branch, and he and he is ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Azeez Sahib Vs. Dhana-bagiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad5
ORDER1. One of the legal Representatives of the deceased Plaintiff who has obtained a decree for costs against the defendants has filed this civil revision petition. The defendants and the other legal representatives of the deceased decree holder are the respondents.2. One Abdul Sukkoor Sahib filed a suit in O.S. No. 712 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif, Tindivanam, for injuction against the two defendants (Respondents 1 and 15 herein) restraining them from interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit was dismissed, and on appeal. The suit was decreed and the plaintiff w as awarded costs. The plaintiff died on 17-5-1971. Without impleading his legal representatives, the appeal was disposed of on 15-7-1971. The plaintiff's power agent filed an execution petition for recovery of costs and the petition was dismissed since batta was not paid. A second execution petition was filed by the power agent of the legal heirs of the plaintiff were...
Tag this Judgment!Thavasumuthu Nadar Vs. Ramasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ51
ORDERP. Venugopal, J.1. The fifth respondent in the execution petition has filed this civil revision petition. The first plaintiff filed a suit against defendants 1 to 4 and it resulted in a compromise decree, dated 27th February, 1941, by which the 4th defendant as well as his legal representatives should measure 62 kalams of paddy to the plaintiff and his heirs for performance of 'Kulithaligai' charity and if there is default for a continuous period of three years, the first plaintiff, first petitioner is entitled to execute the decree and recover possesion of the properties. The second petitioner is the legal representative of the deceased first petitioner. In a partition between the 4th respondent and his brother, the 8th respondent, the suit property was allotted to the share of the 5th respondent who has sold the same in favour of respondents 6 to 8. The second petitioner filed the execution petition alleging that the 4th respondent was giving the annuity in a reduced quantity an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »