Chennai Court March 1985 Judgments
Subba Naicker Vs. Durai Raj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ123
ORDERG. Maheswaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Manamadurai, passed on 30.11.1982 allowing the execution to proceed and fixing a date for proclamation and sale. The respondent obtained a decree in O.S.No. 130 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Manamadurai, against the revision petitioner for Rs. 3,500/-. E.P.No. 103 of 1982 was filed by the decree-holder to realise the amount of Rs. 7,126-15. The decree-holder attached three items of properties worth about more than a lakh. The trial court ordered sale of the property notwithstanding the fact that it was brought to the notice of the court that for a decree debt of Rs. 7,000/- and odd, properties worth several lakhs cannot be brought to sale.2. From the records it is seen that the judgment-debtor, namely, the revision petitioner has valued first item at Rs. 20,000/-, the second item at Rs. 4,500/-and the third item at Rs. 3,500/-. The value given by the revision petitioner-ju...
Tag this Judgment!Chettimai C. Nanjappa Chettiar (Deceased) and anr. Vs. S.M. Kuppuswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ154
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 13 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, originally preferred this appeal. The original appellant died pending the appeal and his legal representative being his son is on record as the appellant. The respondents in the appeal are the defendants in the suit. The suit was laid under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable End(sic)ents Act 22 of 1959, to set aside the (sic)er, dated 13th October, 1972 of the fourth defendant in A.P.No. 40 of 1971 and to declare that the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of the Ellai Chandi Vinayakar Temple in Coimbatore. The entire gamut of the facts need not be set out in this judgment for the simple reason, the controversy has boiled down to a particular aspect as to whether hereditary trusteeship, which was admittedly in existence, was lost by relinquishment as reasoned by the fourth defendant in his order and which has found countenance before the Court below...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Murugan Financing Corporation Chit Promoters and Financiers and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1985
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ204
Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioners in these writ petitions conduct chit funds on securing registration under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961 (T.N. Act 24 of 1961)(hereinafter referred to as the Act). They seek for a declaration that the amendments effected to Article 1 and insertion of Article 8-A to Appendix II of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are unconstitutional and illegal. The amendments were made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 63 of the Act. These amendments came into force with effect from 21.10.1981 consequent to its publication in the Fort St. George Gazette : of G.O.Ms. No. 1075, Commerical Taxes and Religious Endowments, dated 23.9.1981. The amendments are to the following effect.ANNEXURE.NotificationIn exercise of the powers conferred by Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1961) the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendments to the Tamil Nadu Chi...
Tag this Judgment!B.K. Dastur and anr. Vs. N. Rajaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1985
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ398
Mohan, J.1. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are appellants in this appeal.2. The appeal arises out of O.S. No. 1184 of 1976 on the file of the Second Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The suit was filed on foot of a promissory note, Ex. Al, dt.21st February, 1970, executed by the first defendant (N. Bhala Rao) and one Clubwallah. Both of them were partners of Ramjal Finance Corporation. They had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000 agreeing to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum, for which amount they had executed the said promissory note. The endorsement was made that -he interest had been paid till 31st December, 1972. The later endorsement is dated 12th August, 1973. Subsequently Clubwallah died on 17th February, 1974 Mrs. Clubwallah also died in February, 1975. On 31st January, 1976 an endorsement was made that interest had been paid up to that date. After the death of Clubwallah, the firm Ramjal Finance Corporation was dissolved, and the first defendant is now carrying on the business un...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.K. Ananthakumar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1985
Reported in: [1986]157ITR598(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this petition filed under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, the Revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 1,40,000, being the amount transferred by the assessee to a trust for his would-be wife and later handed over by the trust to the lady, in the net wealth of the assessee, was not warranted 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in its interpretation of the provisions of section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, to the effect that the words 'to whom such assets have been transferred' would mean to the 'spouse' indicated in the earlier part of the clause and not to the individual or person concerned who subsequently became the 'spouse' ?' 2. However, we find that the questions sought to be referred are covered by the decision o...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Sudarsanam Vs. Madras Purasawalkam Hindu Janopakara Saswatha Nidh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1985
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas776(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. We are in agreement with the learned judge on the interpretation of section 309(7) of the Companies Act. The provision does not prohibit renewal within a period of five years. The proviso relied on by the learned counsel also does not in any way help the learned counsel for the appellant because in this case the original resolution fixing maximum remuneration at Rs. 15,000 per year came into force on June 12, 1980. The second resolution passed increasing the maximum to Rs. 30,000 was only made on December 30, 1982, i.e., more than one year from the date on which the earlier resolution came into force. Therefore, there are no merit in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Government of India Vs. English Electric Company of India Ltd., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1985
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC182; 1985(21)ELT63(Mad)
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of Mohan J. allowing a batch of writ petitions and remitting the cases for fresh consideration of the question as to whether the items manufactured by the respondent-company such as PVC coated periglass sleevings or silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings will fall within Items 72-C, 73(1) or 87 of the Indian Customs Tariff. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are these : The respondent in these appeals imported Periglass Sleevings or Silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings against invoices of the English Electric Co. Ltd. Stafford, United Kingdom. The goods were styled as raw materials and components by the shippers and were to be of a particular specification. They were assessed at the point of clearance for home consumption under Entry 82(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff. The respondent protested against the said assessments and claimed refund of excess duty. After a personal hearing, an order was passed by the Assistant Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Ramakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1985
Reported in: (1985)49CTR(Mad)165; [1986]160ITR625(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In these applications filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the reassessment which was actually made under section 147(a) for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 was not valid 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share income of the minors from the partnership firm in which the Hindu undivided family comprised of the assessee and his wife has a share as a beneficial owner cannot be included in the income of the assessee under section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. However, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that there is any referable question arising from the order of the Tribunal. 3. The assessee in this c...
Tag this Judgment!D. Rajagopalan Vs. the Union of India,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1985
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ459Mad
Sathiadev, J.1. The appellant was appointed as Sub Inspector of Central Excise in March, 1945 in Central Excise and Salt Department. The post was redesignated as Inspector of Central Excise in 1948. In the same year, the Department was separated into two departments called as Salt Department and Central Excise Department. On option extended to the personnel in the Central Excise Department, appellant opted to continue as Inspector of Salt in the newly created Salt Department with the same scale of pay etc., as in the Central Excise Department. He was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Salt in 1963 and later promoted as Superintendent of Salt. He retired in the said post on 30th September, 1979. He preferred W.P. No. 5017 of 1978 for quashing the order of the first respondent dated 16th October, 1978, in and by which, the representations made by Deputy Superintendents/Inspectors of Salt Department for revision of their pay scales with effect from 1st July, 1959 under C.C.S. (Revised P...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sampath Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Mad)380; [1986]158ITR25(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a partner in M/s. Sam Engineering Company, Coimbatore, and he was being assessed to income-tax on his share of the income as a partner of the firm. On July 24, 1978, he started his own separate business, namely, manufacture and sale of Sam pumps. For this purpose, he purchased machinery out of the monies borrowed and the machinery was installed during the year 1979-80. The entire amount of interest paid on the capital borrowed came to Rs. 35,526 which has been charged to the profit and loss account along with other expenses. The assessee's case was that the interest payment should be treated as a revenue expenditure and, therefore, it should be charged to the profit and loss account. The assessee also filed an application under section 144A to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who by his order dated April 7, 1980, directed the apportionment of the portion of the interest relating to the borrowals for the purchase and erection of the machinery and pla...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »