Chennai Court November 1983 Judgments
S. Viswanathan and ors. Vs. the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Socie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ92
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioners herein seek the issue of a writ of certiorari from this Court to quash the order of the first respondent herein dated 18th July, 1983, so far as the petitioners are concerned.2. The petitioners who are 12 in number challenge the validity of the said impugned order in the following circumstances : The petitioners are the confirmed employees of the Simpson and Group Companies Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. The said Society is a Co-operative Society formed with the declared object of encouraging thrift and self-help and co-operation among members and of promoting social, intellectual, normal and physical welfare of the members. When it started, functioning in December, 1951, its operation was confined to the City of Madras and it was called 'Employees Cooperative Credit Society'. Subsequently, in or about 1960 the area of operation was extended to all places where the Simpson and Group companies are working. Thus the Society extended its operat...
Tag this Judgment!V. Mohangovinda Doss Vs. A.M. Dhanapal Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ89
P. Venugopal, J.1. The third defendant is the appellant and the defendants 1 2, 4 and 5 are the respondents. The first defendant executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 17,000/- on 5th July, 1965. The first defendant was adjudged insolvent in I.P. No. 3 of 1971 on the file of the District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri and the property came to be vested with the second defendant, He sold property subject to all encumbrances in public auction on 19th July, 1973, and the third defendant purchased the same for Rs. 26,050.00 and the sale was confirmed in his favour on 5th November, 1973. The defendants 4 and 5 are said to be subsequent mortgagees. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of the amount due on the mortgage executed by the first defendant.2. The contention of the third defendant who has filed the present appeal is that the interest claimed at 18% per annum is excessive and usurious and he is entitled to the benefits under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 as ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.R. Alagappan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1983
Reported in: [1987]164ITR690(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In these reference applications, the Revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following question of law as arising out of the order of the Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the annual value of the property No. 4, Chittaranjan Road, Madras-18, should be taken at Rs. 12,000 against Rs. 36,000 adopted by the Income-tax Officer ?' 2. The assessee in this case along with two others owns a property known as 'Laurels' in Chittaranjan Road, Madras. For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee, while computing his property income, had adopted his share of annual letting value of the building at Rs. 4,000, being the 1/3rd share of the total annual letting value of Rs. 12,000, adopted for the whole building. The assessee sought to support the annual letting value of Rs. 12,000 adopted by him by referring to the annual letting value fixed by the Corporation of M...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Panipoondar Vs. Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ432
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 70 of 1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai, is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit. There were two other defendants and they have not been made parties to this second appeal, since obviously their presence is not necessary for the purpose of this second appeal. The plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of vacant possession. The suit has come to be filed under the following circumstances. The suit property is about one kuzhi of land in new survey No. 158/9/19, part of old survey No. 158/1 in Avadainallavijayapuram village, Orathandau Taluk, Thanjavur District. The suit property and five kuzhis of land south of the suit property (total 2 cents) were purchased by the plaintiff from one Chinnayyan under a registered sale deed dated 23-7-76, marked in the suit as Ex.A-1 and the plaintiff has put up a shed thereon and it is in his enjoyment...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vensimal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1983
Reported in: [1986]157ITR807(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this reference petition, the assessee seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in restricting the claim of relief under section 35B of 50 per cent. in the case of salary and rent (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in disallowing the claim under section 35B of the Income-tax Act in respect of packing, freight and insurance, cooly, trade expenses and legal expenses and all or any of the above items of expenditure ?' 2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in the export of handloom fabrics. It claimed weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the following expenditure : Rs.Salary 1,35,857Rent 16,800Packing 2,67,279Freight and insurance 9,70,486Cooly 39,422Insurance and E.C.& G.C. 81,374Trade expenses 78,92...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T. Narayanaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: [1985]156ITR194(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee was a member of a HUF till May 1974, when a partition took place between him and the other members of his family. In that partition, certain agricultural lands were allotted to the assessee. Subsequently, the lands were acquired by the Government in February 1975. With the compensation received, the assessee purchased two other pieces of agricultural lands on February 9, 1977, and claimed that a sum of Rs. 78,929 incurred for the purchase of the fresh agricultural lands should be set off against the capital gains arising out of the acquisition of the agricultural lands received by him on partition. The ITO found that the assessee had satisfied the condition that fresh lands has been purchased within two years from the sale of the other lands. But he was of the view that the assessee is not entitled to claim set off of the sum of Rs. 78,929 from the capital gains as he has not held the lands for agricultural purposes for two years preceding the acquisition. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Arasan and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)40CTR(Mad)202; [1985]152ITR206(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a firm. During the year ended August 16, 1969, relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, it claimed a development rebate of Rs. 99,802 in respect of new machineries purchased during the year. The ITO noticed that the firm purchased these new machineries which were intended for use in the workshop to be set up at Tirunelveli, but these machineries were neither installed nor used during the accounting year. It was also found that during that year, the assessee had created the necessary reserve when it made the claim for development rebate for the assessment year 1970-71. The ITO had rejected the claim for development rebate for the year 1970-71 on the ground that the machinery has neither been installed nor used during the relevant accounting year. That rejection of the claim for development rebate has attained finality as the Tribunal has upheld the rejection of the claim. 2. For the assessment year 1971-72, the assessee, while furnishing the ...
Tag this Judgment!M.A.A. Raoof Vs. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle Ii(6), Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: [1985]152ITR228(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. The petitioner was the winner of a jackpot ticket in the Madras Race Course on September 6,1981. The dividend was Rs. 9,361 out of which the second respondent deducted a sum of Rs. 3,040 towards income-tax and surcharge and paid the balance to the petitioner. has come to this court challenging the deduction at source from the amount that he is entitled to as a winner of the jackpot ticket. it appears that he made representations to both the respondents that deduction of income-tax at source is not in accordance with law and he must be given back the amount so deducted. But, the second respondent replied stating that it is a statutory obligation and, therefore, he cannot but deduct the same as required under law. As there was no response from the first respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner appeared in person and the substance of his argument as could he gathered from the affidavit, is as follows : According to the petitioner, s. 10(3)...
Tag this Judgment!Sara Nisha and ors. Vs. S. Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ152
K. Shanmukham, J.1. The defendants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased mortgagor, are the appellants in this appeal. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore made in O.S. No. 586 of 1975. The said suit is by the first respondent mortgagee for recovery of Rs. 14,568.75 due on the mortgage exhibited as A. 1, dated 6.6.1968 executed by the deceased Pandit Jayalani in the first respondent's favour. At the time of the suit, as the original mortgagor was dead the first respondent filed the said suit as against the legal representatives of the deceased mortgagor for the recovery of the amount due on the mortgage deed.2. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, which was adopted by the other defendants, the following defence was raised. The plaintiff is put to strict proof that the deceased Jayalani borrowed and executed the suit mortgage. In any event the interest claimed is usurious and untenable. Howev...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishnan Reddiar Vs. Srinivasa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ418
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by him for a declaration of his title to 8/9 share in item 1 and for declaration of his title to the whole of items 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule and for recovery of possession. There are three items in the plaint schedule. The first item is a house property with some vacant site surrounding and items 2 and 3 are two vacant sites. Though in the form the plaintiff has asked for a declaration of his title to 8/9 share in item 1, there is no dispute relating to his 4/9 share in the same and the dispute is only with reference to the remaining 4/9 share so far as item 1 is concerned. The plaintiff claimed title to this 4/9 share in item 1 under two sale deeds, one dated 17-5-1971 marked as Exhibit A-9 in the case and the other dated 6-3-1975 marked as Exhibit A-13. Exhibit A-13 purports to be a sale deed executed by the first defendant by which the plaintiff claimed that he had purchased 2/9 share in item 1 and the whole...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »