Chennai Court July 1983 Judgments
Sesharal Bajna Vs. V.C. Subramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad368
1. Suit on a promissory note to recover a sum of Rs. 1,20,400/- from the defendants.2. The plaintiff's case is as follows : Defendants 1 and 2. who are father and son, executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 25-11-1976 for a sum of Rs. 70,000 agreeing to repay the sum with interest at 24 per cent per annum. The date of the promissory note and the name of the promisee were not filled up in the promissory note and the defendants authorised the plaintiff to fill up those particulars himself. Therefore the plaintiff has filed the suit without filling those particulars and has filed the original promissory note as it was executed by the defendants 1 and 2.3. When the executants failed to pay the interest due under the promissory note for two months, the plaintiff pressed for the same and thereupon the third defendant, namely, the wife of the first defendant, executed a letter of guarantee on 1-2-1977, for repayment of the same. All the three defendants executed the letter o...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ayya Naidu (Deceased) (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1983
Reported in: [1985]152ITR499(Mad)
Fakkir Mohammed, J. 1. The reference has been made by the Income-tax Tribunal, Madras, at the instance of the assessee under Section 26 of the G.T. Act, 1958. The question that is referred is as follows :'Whether the assessee had made a gift of the properties in favour of of his daughter and grandchildren under the deed dated February 11, 1969?'2. The assessee executed a registered document on February 11, 1969, in favour of his wife, styling it as a settlement deed in respect of 18 items ofproperties, which belonged to him. In the said document, he has granted a life estate without any power of alienation in favour of his wife jointly with himself, and the latter shall enjoy the properties described therein, in the event of he pre-deceasing his wife. He has further provided in the document that his grand-daughter, Priavathi, grandson, Jayaprakasam, and his daughter, Seethalakshmi Ammal, should take their respective items of properties marked for them as their absolute properties after...
Tag this Judgment!Kodiyambal Ammal Vs. N.V. Ananthakrishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ529
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 1068 of 1982, District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The suit was instituted by the respondent herein praying for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and her men, agents and servants from interfering with the right of the respondent to carry out the repairs to the premises bearing door No. 33, South Madai Street, Villivakkam. According to the case of the respondent, originally the property was let out by Doraiswamy Mudaliar, the husband of the petitioner, to the respondent in 1969 on a monthly rent of Rs. 70 and on his death in 1979, the respondent attorned the tenancy to the petitioner, who is the wife of Doraiswamy Mudaliar, and had been paying the. rents as well upto 5th April, 1980 in person Thereafter, the rents, according to the respondent, had been sent by money-order and the rents upto March, 1982 had also been paid in that manner. The further case of the respondent was...
Tag this Judgment!V. Radhakrishnan (Deceased) by His Lrs. ors. Vs. Indian Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ443Mad
1. Application, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for review of the Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Ramanujam, dated 18th January, 1983 and made in W.P. No. 4669/79, presented to this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to TSE/75-76, on the file of the second respondent and the order of the second respondent dated 20th December, 1978 as communicated by the gist order of the second respondent dated 27th October, 1978 and quash the order of the second respondent dated 20th October, 1978. 2. This application coming on for hearing on 24th June, 1983, upon perusing the petition of review and the judgment and order of this Court dated 18th January, 1983 and made in W.P. No. 4669/79, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. N. G. R. Prasad for M/s. Row and Reddy, K. Chandra and R. Rajaram, advocates for the petitioners and of Mr. G. Venkataraman for M/s. Aiyar and Dolia, advocates for the first respondents and of Mr. S. Jagadeesan, Government...
Tag this Judgment!V. Krishna Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: [1984]150ITR455(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a firm carrying on business of purchasing paddy, converting the same into rice and selling the resultant rice. It filed its return of income disclosing a sum of Rs. 18,306 as income for the assessment year 1965-66, the same being estimated at 10% of the turnover of Rs. 1,83,060 as per its books. There was a raid in the assessee's premises by the officers of the Income-tax Department on February 1, 1965, and during that raid certain incriminating documents were seized. The ITO, after scrutiny thereof, noticed that certain purchases made on certain dates had not been recorded in its books of account. He further noticed that payment of wages to its employees as per register did not tally with the corresponding entries made in the accounts. Holding that the account books maintained by the assessee were not reliable, and on considering the facts that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had determined the turnover of the assessee for the relevant ye...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1983
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas7(Mad); [1985]151ITR122(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The two questions that are sought to be referred to this court for its opinion by the Revenue are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the shares pertaining to the 'sick mills' have been validly transferred to Messrs. Karumuthu Ramaswamy Finance (P.) Ltd., during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1977-78 and, hence, the assessee is entitled to loss on such transfer ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's further finding to the effect that shares being movable property can be transferred as per the articles of the company and the transferee gets the right of ownership even if the transaction is not entered in the share registers of the company is sustain-able in law ' 2. The facts leading to the filing of this reference petition may briefly be stated : The assessee is an individual having income from a partnership firm, share dividends, sitting fees, etc. He ...
Tag this Judgment!M.V. Arunachalam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1983
Reported in: [1985]152ITR512(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee seeks a direction in this reference petition to the Tribunal to refer the following question for a decision of this court, as arising from the order of the Tribunal I 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in refusing to amend its order and cancel the assessment made under Section 147(b) of the Act ?'2. The assessee claimed and obtained exemption from capital gains tax under Section 54 of the I.T. Act, for the assessment year 1972-73, in the income-tax assessment made under Section 143(3) of the said Act on July 23, 1974. Subsequently on the ground that there was information from the audit party that the exemption was not available to a HUF, the assessment was reopened by ITO under Section 147(b). In the reassessment made on January 11,1978, the ITO took the view that the exemption granted under Section 54 in respect of the sale of the 20% share in the property known as 'Chamundeswari Bagh' at No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaveerchand Vs. Town Panchayat Rep. by Its Executive Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ45
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Revision petitioner contends that the decision of the Court below on issue No. 5 in O.S. No. 753 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur, that the court-fee is payable 'ad valorem' on Rs. 15, 649. 20 and hence the said Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, is erroneous.2. In the plaint, in paragraph 8, it is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose, when defendant served the demand for recovery of Rs. 15,649.20 on the plaintiff, and hence, he has sought for a declaration that the demand under assessment by defendant Town Panchayat, Sriperumbudur, is invalid and unenforceable, and also for consequential injunction.3. Mr. K.N. Balasubramanian, learned Counsel for petitioner, by adverting to the order passed, submits that the decision in A.P.S. Electricity Board v. Ramachandra Reddy : AIR1977AP200 relied upon could have no application, because of the different wordings adopted in Sections 24(d) and 26(c) of Andhra Pradesh Court-fees Ac...
Tag this Judgment!T.P. Palaniswami and anr. Vs. Deivanaiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad19; (1983)IIMLJ547
1. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the petitioners in this revision. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The matter arises out of a suit for partition. A preliminary decree was passed an 11-8-1978, Final decree application was filed and pursuant to orders thereon, the Commissioner visited the properties for effecting division. According to the plaintiffs it was at that time they noticed the omission to include a well in one of the survey numbers as available for division. This obliged them to file an application for amendment of the plaint under 0. 6, R. 17 C. P. C_ hereinafter referred to as the code to include the said well. The Court below has dismissed this application and this revision is directed against the order of the court below.2. Mr. P. Sadasivam learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the court below ought not have discountenanced the plea for amendment of the plaint, the suit being one for Partition and the court below erred in not accepting the explanation off...
Tag this Judgment!Thiakesar Alai, Manapparai, a Unit of Sri Meenakshi Mills Limited, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ428
V. Ratnam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 154 of l961, Sub-Court, Karur, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. That suit was instituted by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 72,976-33 with subsequent interest and costs under the following circumstances.2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of yarn and the respondent is a dealer doing business in yarn. On 20th November, 1980, according to the case of the respondent, the petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent agreeing to deliver 50 bales of 181. 6. kgs. nett each of 1 on plain yarn at the rate of Rs. 63 per 4,34 kgs. ex-mill plus Sales Tax and 50 bales of 200 kgs , nett each of 2/17 plain yarn at the rate of Rs. 94 per 5 kgs ex-mill plus Sales Tax etc. The petitioner used to intimate the respondent about the readiness and availability of the bales and on receipt of such intimation, the respondent used to send the value of the bales either by draft or by cheque, as was the usual practice. Som...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »