Chennai Court December 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G. Rajam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1982
Reported in: (1987)64CTR(Mad)256
Balasubrahmanyan, J. - These two references deal with two dealers in company shares. This means that company shares are their stock-in-trade. They were being assessed to income-tax on the profits they were making year by year in the purchase and sales of shares as stock-in-trade. Some of the shares they held were in the Indian Bank Limited. Consequent on the nationalisation of the Bank, the Indian Bank Limited went into liquidation. The liquidator paid over to these two assessees certain sums as' dividends' in the winding up. In one case the amount was Rs. 3,376 and in the other it was Rs. 1,124.2. The assessees claimed before the ITO that these amounts must be assessed under the head Capital gains. The Officer rejected this claim on the score that the assessees were dealers in shares and the Indian Bank shares were part of their stock-in-trade and nonetheless so for the fact that the company was under liquidation. He accordingly included the dividends distributed by the liquidator as ...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Kasinathan Vs. Madras Dock Labour Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ364Mad; (1983)IIMLJ103
1. The petitioner herein was working as a tally clerk in the Madras Dock Labour Board from 1961. In 1971 he was made the President of the Tamil Nadu Port Trust and Dock Labour Board Dressed Classes Workers' League (sangam) registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. On 17th February, 1972, a charge memo was workers to stop work and to indulge in an illegal strike. Based on those charges, the Labour Officer initiated a domestic enquiry and found him guilty of the said charges. The Deputy Chairman of the Dock Labour Board thereafter dismissed him from service by order, dated 19th April, 1972. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1347 of 1972, questioning the order of dismissal from service. The writ petition having been dismissed, he filed Writ Appeal No. 203 of 1974. The writ appeal was also dismissed and all the grounds of attack put forward by the petitioner against the order of dismissal were rejected. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute as r...
Tag this Judgment!Nagammal Vs. Alagumanna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ40
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the defendant, Nagammal against the judgment and decree, dated 19th August, 1981, in O.S. No. 2158 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for and that the defendant is not entitled to any of the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act.2. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff Alagumanna Chettiar, who is the respondent herein who is not represented today when this petition is heard. He has neither appeared in person nor made arrangements to make representations. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner was heard. The suit was on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 20th March, 1974 for Rs. 1,500 which is filed as Exhibit A-1 in the suit. Exhibit A-2 is the registration copy of the mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the Nallaperumal Chettiar. Apart from examining himself as P. W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalinga Naicker Vs. Chennakrishna Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad347; (1983)1MLJ269
ORDER1. This unnumbered revision petition is listed before this Court for deciding as to its maintainability.2. This petition is filed by the first defendant in O.S. 1366/82 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif: Tiruvannamalai, on being aggrieved by the ex parte order made by the Court below in I.A.3762/82 in the above case filed by the plaintiff u/ss. 94 and 151 and O. 39. Rr. 1 and 2. C.P.C. granting an ad interim injunction as prayed for, pending disposal of the said application and directing notice to the revision petitioner (first defendant) and the other two defendants, returnable by 27-11-1982.3. The attack made against this order is that the said order has been passed arbitrarily and without assigning any reason for dispensing with the notice to the petitioner and the other defendants (respondents 2 and 3 herein) and that the said unreasoned order is violative of the principles as laid down in the decision in Abdul Shukoor v. Uma Chander AIR 1976 Mad 350 rendered by ...
Tag this Judgment!Hyath Basha Vs. Tajan Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad328; (1983)1MLJ277
ORDER1. This revision is sought to be filed by the tenant in H. R. C. O. P. 16 of 1980 on the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Tiruvannamalai, against the order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing M. P. 9/82 filed by him for reopening the case for the purpose of examining the petitioner's witness viz., the previous landlord's son Sri Mohan Kumar for proving the regular payment of rent.2. It transpires from the impugned order that after examination of the witness on the said of the landlord, the case stood posted on 15-3-1982 and thereafter on 13-4-1982 on which date the tenant represented that he had no witness to be examined on his said. Then the case stood posted at the request of both the parties, to 22-4-1982 for arguments, on which date the petitioner took out an application with an affidavit that he intended to examine a witness on his said or the reasons for such intended examination. It was under these circumstances the Court dismissed the petition holding that...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganatha Mudaliar Vs. M.S. Yakoof Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ191
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In this revision, the tenant within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the petitioner. The respondent herein is the landlord within the meaning of the Act, The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act on the ground that he required the premises in question, which is non-residential, for the purpose of the business which he is carrying on in a non-residential building not of his own. n spite of the contest by the tenant, the Controller found a warrant to accept the case of the landlord and ordered eviction. The tenant appealed to the appellate authority and the appellate authority did not find a warrant to disturb the order of the Controller and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.2. The findings on the relevant aspects by the two forums below are factual and are concurrent. Realising the limitations of this Court to interfere with t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Prasad Process (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: [1983]141ITR9(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. These references relate to 'entertainment expenditure' under the I.T. Act, 1961, a topic which is not very entertaining to deal with. Even to trace its legislative history is rather a bore. Right from the beginning of income-tax in this country, till very recently, there was nothing in the statue against the allowance of entertainment expenditure. Just like any other expenditure, entertainment expenditure too had to satisfy the test of 'wholly and exclusively' for the purposes of the business. That was all. But in 1961, Parliament came down with an elaborate provision for disallowance. It was not a wholesale ban on the claim for deduction under this head. Nor did the provision apply to every taxpayer. It applied only to the company assessments, to start with. It was extended later to other assessees. In 1970, Parliament tightened its grip. From 1970 onwards, no expenditure was allowed at all to anybody if it was spent in business entertainment in India. This ban...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. R. Brahadeeswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: [1987]163ITR680(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. There are two questions for our consideration in this estate duty reference. The second question is as follows : 'Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the inclusion of the lineal descendant's share in the principal value of the estate was not proper and, therefore, it should be excluded therefrom ?' 2. The answer to this question has been supplied by the Tribunal themselves citing a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED : [1973]91ITR24(Mad) . In that case, it was held that section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), which enjoins the clubbing, along with the deceased's undivided share in Mitakshara coparcenary property, of the share or shares of the deceased's lineal descendants, is inconsistent with article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, void. The Tribunal had to give effect to the decision of this court striking down section 34(1)(c) as unconstitutional in the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ks. M.G. Meenambal and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: [1984]56STC82(Mad)
1. These are revisions filed by the State Government from two orders passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal purporting to be under section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. Section 55 has the marginal heading "Power to rectify any error apparent on the face of the record". Under this section the Appellate Tribunal may at any time within three years from the date of any order passed by it "rectify any error apparent on the face of the record". In this case, the original orders were passed by the Tribunal on 31st January, 1978, and 25th April, 1978, respectively. Those orders had been rendered in appeals filed by two assessees who were hoteliers. They contended before the Tribunal that the receipt from their hotel business could not be subjected to sales tax as sales turnover. This contention was rejected by the Tribunal in their orders dated 25th April, 1978, and 31st January, 1978. Subsequently, on 7th September, 1978, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment in Nort...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajan Kattalai Attached to Sri Thyagarajaswami Temple, Thiruvarur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ61
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner by invoking Section 89 of Tamil Nadu Co operative Societies Act, 1961 (Act LIII of 1961), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) sought for leave to proceed further with O.S. No. 71 of 1967 filed by it, in Sub Court, Nagapattinam, against the third respondent Society, for recovery of arrears of rent. It is subsequent to the filing of the said suit, third respondent Society was ordered to be wound up under Section 85 (1). It is thereafter, petitioner on more than one occasion moved the concerned authorities for leave to proceed further with the suit, so that the liquidator may defend the Society under liquidation is the suit.2. Second respondent, by order, dated 1st September, 1977, rejected the petition, dated 11th November, 1974 on the ground that the suit against the liquidator in a civil Court is not maintainable. On the further petition filed to first respondent, by impugned order, dated 5th November, 1977, it was rejected, without ascribing any rea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »