Chennai Court January 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore Vs. Nachimuthu Industrial Assoc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)50; [1982]138ITR585(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J. 1. This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', at the instance of the Revenue. 2. The facts found by the Tribunal, as disclosed from the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal, can be stated as follows :- The assessee is a private limited company incorporated on September 5, 1956, for the purpose of promoting various charitable objects. On August 11, 1958, the assessee settled the income from all its properties including the income derived from the business carried on by it in trust for carrying out certain charitable objects set out in the trust deed. The assessee was a partner in seven partnership concerns holding shares as enumerated in the statement of case. The assessee retired from the different partnerships prior to December 31, 1970. On the date the assessee retired from the partnership firms, the respective firms did not have adequate cash resources to pay the amount due to the assessee on the s...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver, Madurai Vs. P.N. Krishnaier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad80
1. This civil revision petition is filed by the Official Receiver, Madurai, against the order of dismissal passed by the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing I. A. No. 30 of 1980 in O. S. 444 of 1974. The said application was filed under Ruled 163 and 165 of Civil Rules of Practice for the issue of a cheque in favour of the Official Receiver for Rupees 23,058-65, which represented the rent in respect of the property vested with the Official Receiver and which was deposited by the tenant in the proceedings started by him with reference to the property in his occupation. The amount in court deposit represented the rent for house property forming part of the estate and it is for the period from 1-7-1974 to 23-8-1979. It has to be noted that the insolvency itself has been annulled on 23-8-1979.2. The contention of the third respondent herein (tenant in occupation of the premises) is that in view of the order of annulment, the Official Receiver has no locus stand to file the application s...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kandaswami Chettiar as Trustee of Dharmaraja Koil Arkonam Vs. R.A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad131
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 175 of 1968 is the appellant in this second appeal. That was a suit filed by him as trustee of Dharmaraja Koil, Arakonam, for a declaration that he is the trustee of the said temple and for an injunction restraining one Murugesa Chettiar, the first defendant in that suit, from interfering with his management of the temple properties. A little earlier than that, the defendant in that suit, from interfering with his management of the temple properties. A little earlier than that, the defendant Murugesa Chettiar himself had filed O. S. 170 of 1967 praying for a declaration that he is the lawfully constituted trustee of the said temple and for an injunction or in the alternative for delivery of possession of the endowed property. The said Murugesa Chettiar also filed O. S. 180 of 1968 as a trustee against one Kanda Pandithar for recovery of rent due to the temple. As the common question to be decided in all these suits was whether Murugesa Chettiar was lawfull...
Tag this Judgment!The Provinicial Superior Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ358
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The question that arises for determination in this writ petition is whether a person who does not file any objection to an application for a temporary permit before the licensing authority within the period of 15 days as provided for under Rule 106-A of the Rules under Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) can be said to be an aggrieved person.2. The facts of the case may be set out as follows. The petitioner is the Provincial Superior, Cluny Convent, Malleswaram, Bangalore. The Cluny Convent runs a health. centre, styled Nirmala Rani Health Centre in Devikapuram village in North Arcot District. The health centre is said to cater to about 30 villages in and around the neighbourhood. It is said that annually 25,000 persons attend the dispensary run by the health centre. The convent is also running a nursery school. While so, the 4th respondent filed an application before the Collector of North Arcot, the third respondent her...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. P.N. Krishnaier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ460
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the Official Receiver, Madurai, against the order of dismissal passed by the Subordinate Judge, Madurai dismissing I.A. No. 30 of 1980 in O.S. No. 444 of 1974. The said application was filed under rules 163 and 165 of Civil Rules of Practice for the issue of a cheque, in favour of the Official Receiver, for Rs. 23,058.65 which represented the rent in respect of the property vested with the Official Receiver and which was deposited by the tenant in the proceedings started by him with reference, to the property in his occupation. The amount in Court deposit represented the rent for the house property forming part of the estate and it is for the period from 1st July, 1974 to 23rd August, 1979. It has to be noted that the insolvency itself has been annulled on 23rd August, 1979.2. The contention of the third respondent herein (tenant in occupation of the premises) is that in view of the order of annulment, the Official Re...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Nachiyar and ors. Vs. Hirudaya Dass
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad81
1. The intention of the enactment is not to give power only for the landlord to evict the tenant under some ground or other. Under the provisions of Section 3(4) (a) of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protecting Act, 1970, for the grounds contemplated by the said Section, a tenant can be evicted at the instance of the landlord. In the instant case, it is common ground that the landlord-petitioner had instituted the petition in O. P. 29 of 1976 for the eviction of the tenant, the respondent herein for the conversion of the land into one for which the same had not been let in on lease to the tenant and on the ground of arrears of rent. So far as both the grounds are concerned the lower court had found in favour of the land-lord petitioners herein and the said order can be construed only as an interim order because after having found that the land had been converted into one of the Nanja land which conversion was unauthorised one the lower court had directed the tenant to deposit the ...
Tag this Judgment!E. Rangaraju Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad71; (1983)1MLJ53
1. The third respondent herein filed an application before the second respondent for relief under S. 5 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980, in respect of certain gold articles said to have been pledged by him with the petitioner. The petitioner resisted the said application on the ground that there was no pledge at all and that the receipt produced by the third respondent was not true and genuine. Having regard to the controversy, the second respondent held that since the existence of the debt as well as the pledge is disputed by the petitioner, who is stated to be the creditor, the matter has to be agitated before the civil court. However, when the matter was taken to the appellate authority, the first respondent herein, held that the authorities constituted under the Act can go into the question, as to whether there was in fact a pledge or not and that on the basis of the evidence adduced by the third respondent, that there was a pledge, the third respondent is entitled to a directi...
Tag this Judgment!S.U.S. Davey Sons Vs. P.M. Naranaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad217
1. The property bearing Door No.57 Sir Thiagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Madras - 17, was the subject matter of a mortgage deed dt.16th Nov.1967, executed by Dr.C.Balasubramaniam, C. Balasubramaniam and Alamelu Ammal. The mortgage deed contained a power of sale under S. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. the first respondent herein filed a suit O.S.No. 4650 of 1970 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of a certain sum of money against Mr.C.Balasubramaniam who is the second respondent herein. Pending the suit, in I.A. 13825 of 1970, the plaintiff first respondent herein obtained an order of attachment before judgment on 11th Sept. 1970. The suit was decreed on 5-8-1971, and therefore, the attachment became absolute as and from that date. In exercise of the power of sale under S. 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee brought the property to sale by auction and in the auction held on 7-2-1973, the appellant as the highest bidder purchased the p...
Tag this Judgment!S.U.S. Davey and Sons Vs. P.M. Narayanaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ534
Ramaswami, J.1. The property bearing door No. 57, Sir Thiagaraya Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17, was the subject-matter of a mortgage deed, dated 16th November, 1967, executed by Dr. C. Balasubramaniam, C. Balasubramaniam and Alamelu Ammal. The mortgage deed contained a power of sale under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act. The first respondent herein filed a suit, O.S. No. 4650 of 1970 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of a certain sum of money against Mr. C. Balasubramaniam who is the second respondent herein. Pending the suit, in I.A. No. 13825 of 1970, the plaintiff first respondent herein obtained an order of attachment before judgment on 11th September, 1970. The suit was decreed on 5th August, 1971, and therefore, the attachment became absolute as and from that date. In exercise of the power of sale under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee brought the property to sale by auction and in the auction held on 7th ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore Vs. Ambal Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR771(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. Two questions of law have been referred to us in this tax case by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. They are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding and had valid materials to hold that allowing the directors to take loans from the company without interest did not amount to a benefit or amenity within the meaning of the provisions of section 40(c) of the Act and, therefore, the addition made on that score should be deleted 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that for purposes of invoking the provisions of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, there should be established that there was a direct or indirect link between the assessee-company's interest-bearing borrowings from outsiders and the advance made by the company to its directors without any interest ?' 2. The two questions really raise but a single p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »