Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ255
Padmanabhan, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal involves an interpretation of a trust deed executed on 16th March, 1919 by two brothers Lakshmana Iyer and Krishnaswamy Iyer who were coparceners of a Hindu Mitakshara joint family. The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No. 208 of 1970 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. Lakshmana Iyer and Krishnaswami Iyer were the sons of one Subbier. Subbier died in 1921. It is stated that Krishnaswami Iyer died issueless. We are not concerned in this appeal with Krishnaswami Iyer, Lakshmana Iyer died in 1970. The plaintiff Visalakshi Ammal who died subsequent to the filing of the suit is the daughter of the said Lakshmana Iyer and Sundaramier the defendant (the appellant herein) is the son of Lakshmana Iyer. The plaintiff has filed the suit for a declaration that she is entitled to the office of trustee for 'K. Subbier and Sons Charities', Madurai, for delivery of possession of the suit properties and for rendition of accounts by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ298
K. Venkataswami, J.1. The cultivating tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. It appears that the first respondent landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents, on 1st September, 1981. Notice of the application was served on the petitioner heroin on 4th September, 1981, giving 29th September, 1981 as the date of hearing. On 29th September, 1981, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner tenant. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned from time to time and it appears from the records that the petitioner herein appeared on 16th October, 1981, and sought for time to engage a counsel. The matter was adjourned to 13th November, 1981, finally. Again, it was adjourned to 17th November, 1981. When the Revenue Court found that the petitioner had neither filed vakalat nor appeared before Court, the petitioner was set ex parte on 17th November, 1981, and the matter was adjourned for filing of proof of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]150ITR86(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this reference under s. 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras,, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deceased had a life interest in the properties set out in Schedules B, C and D of the will executed by his wife on March 30, 1967, and whether in view of the fact that he had executed a deed on April 10, 1968, giving up his right therein, those properties should be deemed to have passed on his death under section 9 of the Estate Duty Act ?' 2. The factual backdrop giving rise to this question may now be noticed. One Desika Iyengar (deceased) had two brothers, Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Raghunatha Iyengar. Raghunath Iyengar died in 1946 leaving behind him two sons. Desika Iyengar was employed in the (Central) March 7, 1956, Desika Iyengar (deceased), his brother, Krishnaswamy Iyengar, and his nephews, sons of Raghunatha Iyengar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]55STC286(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this tax case filed by the assessee, the taxability of the following three items of turnover under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is challenged : (1) The turnover of Rs. 1,34,027 which has been claimed by the assessee as exempted under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, (2) a sum of Rs. 27,722 in respect of which the assessee claimed exemption from tax on the ground that the goods have been imported through post parcel from England to the assessee, and (3) a sum of Rs. 87,096 which represented sale in the course of import of the goods by ship.2. As regards the first item, it is seen that the assessee purchased batteries from Lucas Indian Service Ltd., Calcutta, which it later sold the same in entirety to Lucas Indian Service Limited, Madras, before the goods were delivered by the carrier after transporting the goods from Calcutta to Madras. In respect of this turnover, the assessee claimed exemption from tax under section 6(2) of the Central Sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]150ITR80(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The respondent in T.C.P. No. 128 of 1983 and the respondent in T.C.P. No. 265 of 1982 are brothers. They along with another sold a property which is an extent of 65 cents with a building for a consideration of Rs. 3,09,000. The said property had been allotted to all the three brothers under a partition deed dated November 27, 1955. The said partition deed conferred a right of residence in the property in favour of the mother. The assessees in both the cases claimed a deduction of Rs. 60,000 which they had paid to their mother for relinquishing her right of residence in the property sold, on the ground that for acquiring full transferable title in the property, they had to obtain a relinquishment from their mother of her right of residence, therein, as otherwise the property could not be sold for a fair and reasonable price if the right of residence in favour of their mother was subsisting. The deduction of Rs. 60,000 claimed was allowed by the ITO. However, the Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ85
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. In C.M.P. No. 2618 of 1983, petitioner prays for condonation of the delay of 128 days in the filing of the revision petition against an order passed by the Appellate Authority constituted under Tamil Act XVIII of 1960.2. C.M.P. No. 2619 of 1983 is for grant of stay of the proceedings in E.P. No. 144 of 1983 and any other proceedings in H.R.C. No. 3251 of 1974 pending disposal of petition filed in C.M.P. No. 2618 of 1983.3. Petitioner would state that he could not prefer the revision petition within the time-limit as prescribed under Section 25 (2) of Act XVIII of 1960, due to illness for four months.4. Respondent herein submits that in view of the special period provided under Section 25 (2) and as Section 5 of Limitation Act, will have no application and the affidavit filed in support of the petition being devoid of any particulars about illness and no proof having been adduced about the truth of the claim that petitioner was ill for four months, this petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1761
ORDER1. The counter-petitioners in M.C. No. 59 of 1981 on the file of the Executive First class Magistrate-cum-Sub-Collector, Sankari, have filed this petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against them, in the abovesaid case. 2. In respect of two hands bearing survey No. 115/2 of an extend of 2.24 acres and 116 of an extent of 2.52 acres in Seetharamapalayam village in Tiruchengode Taluk there were disputes between the first petitioner and his group of people, on the one hand, and one Rengasami Naidu and his group of people, on the other. The first petitioner, who was appointed as the sole non-hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Vinayagar temple of Sengodampalayam and Arulmigu Mariamman temple of Kailasampalayam in Tiruchengode Taluk claimed that the lands in the two survey fields belong to the temple. Rengasami Naidu and some others, who are Poojaris of the temple have been contending that the lands were their patta lands and that they are entitled to parcel out the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]156ITR671(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a registered firm and its assessed income of Rs. 55,37,160, inter alia, included a sum of Rs. 30,00,000 towards compensation money and Rs. 15,00,000 in respect of the transfer goodwill. There was an appeal against the assessment wherein the assessee contended that the transfer of assets did not result in capital gains in respect of the goodwill and, therefore, the said sum Rs. 15,00,000 cannot be assessed under goodwill. The assessee also contended that since certain portions of assets transferred belong to the partners of the firm in their individual capacity, the compensation money has to be apportioned as between the various assets which were the subject-matter of the bargain. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the decision in Rathnam Nadar v. CIT : [1969]71ITR433(Mad) would apply to the facts of the case and, therefore, the goodwill should be taken as a self-generating asset and, therefore, no capital gain will arise out of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]151ITR144(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case seeks a direction from this court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following five questions : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order passed under section 27(2) is valid and correct in the eye of law (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right is holding that the order of the Wealth-tax Officer under section 35 is wrong (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the mistake of fixing the market value of the lands without considering the impact of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, cannot be rectified under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer did not have jurisdiction under section 35 to rectify the original order (v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding and had sufficient materials to hold that the order under sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1984)1MLJ50
M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. The landlady is the revision' petitioner. The landlady filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 122 of 1980 under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 for her husband's occupation for non-residential purposes, since the business of the husband which is carried on in the front portion of the residential building, which belongs to the landlady, has expanded. The tenant resisted the application stating that the landlady's husband is carrying on business in her own building and that, therefore, the requirement is not bona fide.2. The Rent Controller allowed the application. On appeal preferred by the tenant, appellate authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and dismissed the eviction petition. Hence this revision by the landlady.3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the approach of the appellate authority that the landlady's husband is carrying on his business in her building, is not correct, si...
Tag this Judgment!