Chennai Court January 1984 Judgments
Sendamarai Animalv Vs. Vijaya Rajagopal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad122; (1984)1MLJ324
ORDER1. The defendant in 0. S. No. 207 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition which is directed against the finding recorded by the Court below on the preliminary issue regarding limitation. That suit was laid by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,860 with subsequent interest on the basis of a simple mortgage for Rs. 5000 executed by the petitioner on 21-5-1969 agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest at 12 per cent per annum.. The suit was instituted on 28-6-1982. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, she raised a plea that the suit is barred by limitation and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.. On that plea so raised by the petitioner. an issue was framed regarding the bar of limitation and that issue was tried by the Court below as a preliminary issue. The Court below took the view that as the provisions of French Code Civil would cont...
Tag this Judgment!Meyyappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. K.N. Balakrishrian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1984Mad135; (1984)1MLJ314
ORDER1. The tenants against whom the authorities below have passed an order for eviction on the applications filed by the respondents in these civil revision petitions under S. 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are the petitioners herein. The premises in question are adjacent non-residential buildings situate in N.S.B. Road, Tiruchirapalli in the occupation of the petitioners. Admittedly, the respondents in these civil revision petitions who are related as son and father are the owners of these buildings and the petitioners have been in occupation on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 50. According to the respondents, their buildings in the occupation of the petitioners are old and aged more than 60 years and no repairs have been done. Claiming that the buildings in the occupation of the petitioners are situate in a commercially busy locality and that if the existing buildings a...
Tag this Judgment!Fourth Income-tax Officer Vs. P. S. M. Swamy.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD317(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. V. K. Nataraja Chandran, Accountant Member -This is an appeal by the revenue which is directed against the order of the AAC dated 17-3-1983 wherein he deleted the inclusion of share income of Smt. Jothi Ammal made by the ITO under section 64(1) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The revenue has taken grounds urging that the AAC erred in his order and the decisions of the High Court relied on by him have not become final and, therefore, his order should be set aside and that of the ITO be restored.2. The assessee is an individual and the assessment year involved is 1980-81 for which the accounting year ended on 31-3-1980. The assessee is a partner in Senthil Traders representing his HUF and his wife Smt. Jothi Ammal is also a partner in the same firm in her individual capacity. The assessee was paid salary of Rs. 9,000 by the firm for his services for managing the business of the firm. While the share of profits derived by the assessee was assessed in the hands ...
Tag this Judgment!Third Income-tax Officer Vs. A. Mohamed Sehal BashA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD1067(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. V. K. Nataraja Chandran, Accountant member -These appeals belonging to partners of Mohamed Ismail & Co., Ranipet are consolidated for the sake of convenience and disposed of together as the issues involved in these appeals are common. These appeals are directed against the separate orders passed by the AAC dated 15-12-1982 wherein he has upheld the claims of the assessees for grant of interest under section 214(2) and 244(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1962 (the Act) which was not granted by the ITO.2. The assessees are partners in Mohamed Ismail & Co. Ranipet. The common issue involved in these appeals is whether appeal lies before the AAC against the order of the ITO not granting interest under sections 214(2) and 214(1A). The common facts are that the ITO originally adopted the share income of the assessees from the firm Mohamed Ismail & Co. provisionally subject to revision on ascertaining of correct share income from the firm. The ITO revised the order under section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Club Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)43CTR(Mad)38; [1985]153ITR172(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. These writ petitions praying for the issue of writs of prohibition at the instance of the Coimbatore Club (hereinafter referred to as 'the club') challenge the legality and validity of the notice issued by the WTO. City Circle I(2), Coimbatore, the respondent herein, to the club under s. 16(2) of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77. Earlier, notices under s. 17 of the Act, had been issued to the club on the ground that for the assessment years mentioned above, the assessable net wealth of the club had escaped assessment and the club was called upon to deliver returns of its net wealth for the years in question chargeable to tax together with other particulars. The club sent a reply stating that on the abolition of wealth-tax on companies from the assessment year 1960-61 onwards, wealth-tax is chargeable only on individual and HUFs and as the club did not fall within these categories of assessable units or e...
Tag this Judgment!S. Parvathammal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR161(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee in this case is an individual. One Ramalingam Pillai and Subramania Pillai, the husband of the assessee, entered into a deed of partnership on July 22, 1945, for the purpose of carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of certain medicinal products under the firm name of South India Manufacturing Company and that business was so carried on and conducted. Subramania Pillai died on February 19, 1972. By another deed of partnership dated February 23, 1972, entered into between Ramalingam Pillai and the assessee, the assessee became a partner of the firm 'South Indian Manufacturing Company'. Her capital contribution was stated to be that amount which stood to the credit of her deceased husband, Subramania Pillai, in the capital account of the firm as on February 19, 1972. For the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee returned a loss of RS. 1,52,098 claiming that she had succeeded to the business of her husband by inheritance and that the loss amounting to R...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Shaik Fathima and ors. Vs. Omer Cloth Store and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad90
ORDER1. Since all these matters arise out of eviction petitions filed in respect of one and the same building which has been let out to different tenants and they are interconnected and also involve the same issues, they are dealt with together.2. The petitioners in all the above civil revision petitions are the same and they are the landlords who have sought eviction of each of the respondents in these petitions who are tenants under them. Since the defence taken by all the respondents herein in each of the eviction petitions is substantially the same, it is unnecessary to consider their defence separately. The respondents in each of these petitions will hereinafter be compendiously called, as tenants and their defence will be considered in common.3. The petitioners are the owners of premises bearing door No. 22 Veerappan St, Madras, in which the respondents are the tenants in respect of various portions of the said premises. The petitioners filed petitions for eviction against the te...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Khaja HussaIn Vs. R. Rajamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ202
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein filed three applications for eviction against his tenants in occupation of door Nos. 14, 14-A to 14-D, Krishna Rao Street, Dindigul Town under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground that the said buildings are required for demolition and reconstruction. The said petitions for eviction are resisted by each of the tenants on the ground that the petitions for eviction filed under Section 14(1)(b) were only a ruse for enhancing the rent, that the buildings in question are not old and dilapidated and therefore they do not require demolition and reconstruction. They also contended that since the landlord wanted to make only certain changes in the front portion of the existing building, the same will not amount to demolition and reconstruction so as to attract Section 14(1)(b) of the said Act.2. The Rent Controller by a common order dated 5th September, 1979 held that the landlord has sufficie...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. B. R. Santamani.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1984
Reported in: [1984]8ITD629(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri S. Rajaratnam, Accountant Member - This is a departmental appeal arising out of the order of the Appellate Controller in respect of the estate duty assessment on Smt. B. R. Santamani, accountable person for the estate of the deceased Shri P. R. Kesavamurthy who died on 23-5-1979.2. The decease was an employee of the RBI and was a member of Reserve Bank Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd. (the bank). The dispute relates to the amount of Rs. 10,000 received by the accountable person in her capacity as wife and nominee of the deceased from the relief fund constituted by the said Co-operative Bank. It is seen from the copies filed of the relevant bye-laws that this amount was paid by the bank of collecting Rs. 10 from each member on the death of one of them. The copy of the relevant resolution reads as under :'Resolved to pay to the nominee of the deceased member a sum of Rs. 10,000 from death relief fund in the event of death of a member and recover from the salary of the membe...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central), Madras Vs. Alagappa Cotton Mill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1984
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Mad)230; [1984]149ITR640(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in these cases is a firm carrying on business of spinning, manufacturing and of dealing in cotton and other fabrics. The firm was originally constituted by a partnership deed dated August 31, 1955, with three partners, namely, Shri Alagappa Chettiar and his sons, Shri Annamalai Chettiar and Shri Ramanathan Chettiar. Shri Annamalai Chettiar retired on April 12, 1961, and the firm was reconstituted by a deed dated April 13, 1961, by which Shri Alagappa Chettiar, Shri Ramanathan Chettiar and his wife, Smt. Meyammai Achi, became partners. Shri Alagappa Chettiar died on November 22, 1961, and Shri Ramanathan Chettiar as the Karta of HUF and Smt. Meyammai Achi thereafter carried on the business of partnership with 10 annas and 6 annas shares, respectively. Later, there was a partition of the family properties of Shri Ramanathan Chettiar on September 30, 1964, in which Alagappa Cotton Mills with its buildings and machinery were exclusively allotted to the share o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »