Chennai Court December 1985 Judgments
Maharaja Nadar Vs. Muthukani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad346
1. This is a second appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30-1-1979 of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in A. S. No. 147 of 1978.2. The defendant, Maharaja Nadar in the suit is the appellant herein. -3. The plaintiff, Muthukani Animal filed the suit for maintenance. Her case is as follows : - The marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant was celebrated about 11 years prior to the institution of the suit, in the father's house of the plaintiff at Sivahthipuram, as per the caste custom and usage of the community to which they belong. Since the date of marriage, they lived happily as husband and wife. The defendant was often beating the plaintiff and was cruelly treating her and was driving her out of his house. In spite of it, the plaintiff was bearing all the cruel treatment of her husband and was living as dutiful wife. At one time, the plaintiff was charged with the commission of offence of, theft. The defendant demanded the plaintiffs cons...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. Bhagavathy Investments (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1985
Reported in: [1986]17ITD729(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri T. Venkatappa, Judicial Member - This appeal relates to the levy of additional income-tax under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The ITO found that the distributable income was Rs. 1,73,458 and the dividend distributed was Rs. 93,660. The assessee is an investment company and, therefore, should have distributed 90 per cent i.e., Rs. 1,56,112. Thus, there was a short distribution to the extent of Rs. 62,452. After obtaining the approval of the IAC he levied additional tax of Rs. 39,899 under section 104. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). Before him, it was urged that the assessee purchased shares to the extent of Rs. 1,28,000 out of profits which were held as stock-in-trade. Further, the cash balance available was not sufficient to declare the statutory percentage of dividend. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the investment in new shares is one such commercial obligation imposed on the company by virtue of its character as an invest...
Tag this Judgment!Standard Batteries Limited Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: 1986(26)ELT521(Mad)
1. The appellant original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) is a manufacturer of electric storage batteries. During the period of April 1968 to March 1970, 3385 battery containers which the petitioner company had obtained from other manufacturers became waste. According to the petitioner, these containers became waste due to the manufacturing process, such as, slotting, drilling, grinding etc. and the containers thus because defective and unusable. 2. The petitioner informed the Superintendent of Central Excise, that it would like to destroy these containers and the petitioner should, therefore, be given a credit in respect of them in their R.G. 23 account. The account referred to was an account kept by the Excise department of the stock of material or component parts received for the manufacture of finished excisable goods prescribed under Rule 45A. The system of maintaining this account contemplates that as and when a manufacturer receives materials or component ...
Tag this Judgment!Katha Pillai Vs. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, Represented by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ13
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The second defendant in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff would claim the property was a wakf property belonging to a wakf known as Pulichapallam Thaika Wakf. The plaintiff claimed the reliefs of declaration, possession and mesne profits. The second defendant claims title under a sale deed, dated 6.10.1949 from one Khader Baig Sahib as per Ex.B-1. The second defendant denied that the property is a wakf property as claimed by the plaintiff, and he also contested the suit on the ground of limitation. The contest of the second defendant was upheld by the first Court. The plaintiff appealed and the lower appellate Court took a different view. At the time of the admission of this second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the following substantial questions of law were mooted out for consideration:1. Whether the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the suit prope...
Tag this Judgment!T.S.V. Hari Vs. University of Madras, Represented by Its Registrar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ333
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a Writ Petition which has been filed by a journalist, when the process of selection of candidate- to the M.R.A. Course in the Departments of Management Studies of the University of Madras, was under way. He has averred in his petition that respondents 2 and 3, who are Professor and Head of the Department of Management Studies and Reader, Department of Management Studies, University of Madras, respectively, were involved in grave irregularities in July, 1979 when admissions to the same Department were being made. his case was that in spite of these two persons being earlier involved in irregularities they continued to associate with the selection of candidates and, therefore, the Selection Committee could not be said to be an impartial Selection Committee. Therefore, the appellant had asked for a stay of the selection of the respective candidates.2. The learned Judge, who heard this petition, declined to entertain the petition taking the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Srivinayaga Pictures
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1985
Reported in: [1986]161ITR65(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In compliance with the directions given by this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has referred the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,550 representing receipts from Mis. Maharaja Talkies on the ground that the same was allowable as a bad debt in the very same year ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm engaged in business as 'a film producer'. It would appear that the picture 'Moondreluthu' produced by the assessee was screened in Maharaja Talkies, Madras, through a distributor and the assessee accounted for the collections only for about 20 days, from May 10, 1968, to May 31, 1968. However, when the folio of the said Maharaja Talkies in the books of the assessee was examined, it was found that some further collections and receipts from the said Maharaja Talkies were credited to the accounts and it was found that these entries had also b...
Tag this Judgment!R. Janardhanan and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1985
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Mad)97; [1987]165ITR144(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. Under a partition deed dated December 31, 1951, the joint family immovable properties of one Bheema Naidu were divided. The parties to the document were the said Bheema Naidu, his widowed daughter-in-law and four sons of his deceased son of whom two were minors. The properties described in the B, C, D, E and F schedules to the document were allotted to the widow and her four sons, respectively, to be enjoyed by them absolutely. The joint family owned a house in a large area of ground measuring 12 acres 86 cents. This is stated to be the family house. In respect of this house, the disposition in the partition deed was as follows : 'As regards the property in item No. 1 in Schedule A, party No. 1 shall have the right to enjoy the property till his lifetime without subjecting the same to any encumbrances. After his lifetime, R. Ranganayaki, the daughter-in-law of party No 1 and party No. 2 mentioned above, shall enjoy the property till her lifetime without subjecting t...
Tag this Judgment!The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Mayuram and anr. Vs. K.V. Balasu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ307
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of writ appeals W.A.Nos. 255 to 257 of 1977, W.A. No. 242 of 1977, W.P. No. 2878, and W.P. No. 2941 of 1978.2. The question involved in the writ appeals relates to the determination of compensation in respect of surplus lands under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Tamil Nadu 1961 Act. The question is whether the compensation for the lands declared as surplus has to be determined in accordance with the rates prescribed in Schedule HI, as it was on the day on which the Tamil Nadu 1961 Act came into force, that is , 6.4.1960 or in accordance with the schedule which was amended by the Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1972 which came into force from 1st of March, 1972. W.P.Nos. 1855, 1856 and 1858 of 1974 which are filed by the original petitioners out of which W.A.No. 255 to 257 of 1977 arise and W.P.No. 2941 which is filed by the petitioner in W.P.No. 7002 of 1975 ou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›