Chennai Court November 1985 Judgments
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K. Kanakarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1985
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)139; [1987]164ITR750(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madras :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the firm in which the assessee was a partner is an industrial undertaking and accordingly right in directing grant of exemption under Section 5(1)(xxxii) in respect of the assessee's interest in the assets of the firm ?'2. Under Section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), wealth-tax shall not be payable by an assessee in respect of the assets mentioned in the various clauses in that section and such assets shall not also be included in the net wealth of the assessee. Under clause (xxxii) of that section, the asset to be excluded for the purpose of wealth-tax is the value of the interest of the assessee in the assets forming part of an industrial undertaking belonging to a firm of which the assessee is a partner. The assess...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jeya Jothi and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Mad)316
V. Ramaswami, J. - Sree Shanmugar Mill Limited, Rajapalayam, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, had incurred heavy losses and was under liquidation and an Official Liquidator had been appointed by this Court in O.P. No. 279 of 1957. Some of the share-holders desired that the Mill should continue to work by being leased out to a good financier so that the employment of the workers and the capital of the investors of the workers and the capital of the investors could be protected. The assessee-firm, who was granted registration by the ITO came into existence in June 1960, primarily, to work Shanmugar Mill, Rajapalayam. A petition was filed before the High Court in O.P. No. 279 of 1957 for stay of the sale and a directed to the Official Liquidator to grant lease of the Mill was stayed. A list of creditors of the company was also drawn. The Mill was leased to the assessee for a period of ten years on a monthly lease rent of Rs. 6,000. The lease rent was subject to modification...
Tag this Judgment!N.V. Panchapagasan Vs. K. Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Mad154
ORDER1. The plaintiff in 0. S. No. 1382 of 1962 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner-in this Civil Revision petition. The property in dispute bears door No. 12, Doraiswami Road, Madras-17. In 0. S. No. 1382 of 1962, the petitioner prayed for a decree in ejectment against the respondent herein on the ground that he was only a licensee and that the licence in his favour had also been duly terminated. In the course of that suit, the respondent herein put forth the claim that he was a lessee and that he was also entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Consistent with the claim so made, the respondent herein filed 1. A. No. 2553 of 1962 claiming that he is entitled to purchase the site under S. 9 of the Act for a value, to be fixed by the Court. On 28-9-1964, the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, negatived the claim of the respondent that he is a lessee i...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkataswami Naidu Vs. South India Viscose Ltd., Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Mad257; [1986]60CompCas142(Mad)
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 2017 of 1983, District Munsif's Court, Coimbatore, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. In the respondent-company, with which the petitioner appears to have been associated since its inception, he holds two shares. Prior to 29-9-1983, the petitioner was one of its Directors. The Twenty-fifth Annual General Meeting of the respondent-company was scheduled to be held on 29-9-1983 at 11.30 am. Item 2 in the agenda for that meeting related to the appointment of a Director in the place of the petitioner, who retired by rotation and was eligible to offer himself for re-appointment. The annual report of the company and the notice of the Twenty-fifth Annual General Meeting were sent to all the shareholders of the 6drapany well in advance. While matters stood thus, on 28-9-1983, one P. J. Joseph, who held two shares in the respondent company instituted S.C. Suit No. 5658 of 1983 before the City Civil Court, Bombay, against the respondent-company, t...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. the Southern India Central Benefit (Private ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ155
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. The judgment-debtors are the petitioners herein. The facts which are necessary for the diposal of this revision are as follows: The first respondent herein obtained a money decree on 14.10.1978 against the petitioners and in execution of the said money decree, the properties were brought to sale in E.P.No. 80 of 1979 and sold in court auction on 19.10.1980. The second respondent herein is the successful bidder in the auction for Rs. 18,006/-. The sale was confirmed on 10.11.1980. Thereafter the first respondent herein filed an application for issue of a cheque in respect of the decree amount and full satisfaction was also recorded and the execution petition was terminated. The first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner. The third petitioner is the brother of the second petitioner. They filed R.A.No. 257 of 1981 on 11.3.1981 under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing an order declaring that the court auction sale held on 10....
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Southern Leather Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1985
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Mad)385; [1987]164ITR194(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The following questions have been referred at the instance of the Revenue : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's claim of Rs. 16,544 towards foreign tour expenses was an admissible deduction for the assessment year 1965-66 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the foreign tour expenses are allowable in the hands of the assessee-firm and whether they are connected with the business activities of the assessee-firm 3. Whether there are any materials for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the object of the partners' foreign tour was to produce conditions or circumstances whereby the assessee itself would have increased income and whether on the material available such a conclusion was reasonable ?' 2. The assessee in this case, M/s. Southern Leather Industries, is a partnership firm. Some of the partners are also partners of a sister concern call...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Sambandam Chettiar Vs. Marudambal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ340
Sengottuvelan, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the second defendant in O.S. No. 45 of 1973, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, in A.S. No. 119 of 1975, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S. No. 45 of 1973.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:One Subramania Pillai died in the year 1960 leaving behind him his two daughters Marudambal and Mariyayi and three sons Manickam Piltai, Arumugham Pillai and Murugesa Pillai. Murugesa Pillai left the family 18 years ago and his whereabouts were not known and his wife is one Anna-poornathammal. Arumugham Pillai, one of the sons of the deceased Subramania Pillai, filed a suit in O.S. No. 392 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Thiruvaiyaru, for partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the properties left by the said Subramania Pillai. E...
Tag this Judgment!K. Govindaswami Pillai Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad204
1. On a reference made by Nainar Sundaram, J. this writ petition has been heard by this Full Bench . for determination of the question, whether the pronouncement of a Division Bench of this Court in S. S. A. Vivekanandan v. State of Tamil Nadu, etc. W. P. 11886 of 1983, order D/- 2nd.July 1985 sets out the correct position of law and whether the petitioner is entitled to invoke the ratio in the said case to his aid.2. The, petitioner herein is the father of one Jayaprakash alias Jayaprakasarn, who was convicted by the Sessions Judge of Chengallpattu in S.C. 89 of 1984 on the file of his Court under nine counts under S. 302,IPC, for having committed the murder of his sister, sister's husband, their child and six others. between the hours 3.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on 2 .4-24-1984, and sentenced to be hanged by neck till he is dead, subject to the confirmation of the sentence by the High Court. While the Sessions Judge made a reference of the case of Jayaprakash to this Court under S. 366, Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Ukchand Ranka Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1985
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC152; 1987(30)ELT144(Mad)
ORDER1. These writ petitions are dealt with together as the petitioner is the same in both and the writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts. In W.P. 11408 of 1981, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorified mandamus to quash the order No. 365/81 F.No. 373/1325/76 Cus. II dated 4-3-1981 passed by the third respondent therein and for a direction to it to refund the amount of penalty and fine in a sum of Rs. 3,000 while, in W.P. No. 11520 of 1981 the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of declaration to the effect that the notification No. 101-Customs dated 1-7-1964 and Notification G.S.R. 37 7/F.No. 2/5/78 Cus. VI dated 3-1-1969 are unconstitutional, null and void. The facts giving arise to the writ petitions are as follows :- On 30-10-1974, the Customs Preventive Officers, Customs House, Madras, searched the Jain Temple at Pozhal near Red Hills, Madras and recovered 8 silver bars weighing 19.197 Kgs., valued at Rs. 19,858.92 from a gunny covered...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Assistant Secretary, Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ382
S. Natarajan, J.1. These two writ appeals have been filed by the State against the order of S. Mohan, J. in W.P. Nos. 772 and 773 of 1977. W.P. No. 772 of 1977 has been filed by Thiru Chandramohan and W.P. No. 773 of 1977 has been filed by his father Thiru Venkatakrishnan for seeking issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue rejecting the revisions filed by the respective petitioners on the ground that they had been filed beyond the time limit of sixty days prescribed under the rules. The learned single Judge passed a short order directing the Land Commissioner, Board of Revenue, to take up the revisions after condoning the delay and deal with the same on merits. Disputing the correctness of this order, the State has preferred these appeals.2. The limited facts which require to be set out before the contentions of the appellants are gone into, are as under: Thiru Venkatakrishnan was found to have a total holding of 47.26 ordinar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »