Chennai Court February 1986 Judgments
Katha Pillai Vs. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, Represented by Its Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ301
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The judgment in the Second Appeal was delivered on 4.12.1985 and 1 find that the judgment is reported in Katha Pillai v. Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, Madras represented by its Secretary : (1986)1MLJ13 . The respondent in the Second Appeal, the Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, the plaintiff in the suit, asked for possession amongst other reliefs. The appellant, the second-defendant in the suit, raised a plea of limitation. Reliance was placed by the plaintiff on Article 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to state that the plaintiff will have a period of twelve years from the date of its establishment when t be plaintiff must be deemed to have been appointed as the Manager of the Wakf. While repelling this reliance as a total misconception, I have observed and opined as follows:It would be a misnomer to equate the constitution or reconstitution of any Wakf Board to an appointment as Manager of an endowment. Under the Wakf Act, 1954, there could be assumption of a d...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Chingleput Dravidar Kazhagam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Mad264
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. whereby the learned Judge quashed the proceedings of the appellant herein and the second respondent by which the request of the first-respondent to install a statue of Thanthai Periyar E.V. E.V. Ramaswami, the Founder-Leader of Dravida Kazhagam at a particular place in the Municipal Town of Kancheepuram was declined. It will be convenient if we refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the Writ Petition.2. The first respondent herein was the petitioner, the second respondent was the first respondent and the appellant herein was the second-respondent in the Writ Petition. In the year 1974, there was a decision by the members of the Chengalpattu District Dravida Kazhagam to install a statue of Thamthai Periyar E.V. Ramaswami and a Committee was formed in this behalf under the Chairmanship 6f C.P. Rajamanickam, President of the petitioner-Kazhagam, to install and erect the statue at Kancheepuram near Gangai Kondan Mandapam...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Mylapore Branch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ470
ORDERMaheswaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Rent Control), Madras, in R.C.A.No. 1231 of 1982 reversing the order of the Rent Controller, Madras, in H.R.C. No. 2072 of 1981.2. The respondent (referred to as landlord hereinafter) applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the revision petitioner, the tenant, on the ground that the petition schedule premises which he has purchased is required by him for carrying on business as he does not own a non-residential building of his own. The tenant is a Co-operative Rank. The rent payable is Rs. 1,000. The contention of the respondent is that the claim of the landlord is not bona fide as he is not doing any business of his own and as he is doing a family business in his family house at No. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore. in an additional counter, the tenant contended that in a partition among the members of the family of the landlord, the premises No. 155, Cutchery Road, Mylapore, has been allo...
Tag this Judgment!The Govt. of Tamil Nadu by Its Secy. R.D. and L.A. Dept. Vs. the Ching ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ272
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. whereby the learned Judge quashed the proceedings of the appellant herein and the second respondent by which the request of the first respondent to install a statue of Thanthai Periyar E.V. Ramaswami, the Founder-Leader of Dravida Kazhagam at a particular place in the Municipal Town of Kancheepuram was declined. It will be convenient if we refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the writ petition.2. The first respondent herein was the petitioner, the second respondent was the first respondent and the appellant herein was the second respondent in the writ petition. In the year 1974, there was a decision by the members of the Chengalpattu District Dravida Kazhagam to install a statue of Thanthai Periyar E.V. Ramaswami and a Committee was formed in this behalf under the chairmanship of CP. Rajamanickam, President of the petitioner-Kazhagam, to install and erect the statue at Kancheepuram near Gangai...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Chitrarasu (by Legal Representative C. Socrates) Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Mad)31; [1986]160ITR534(Mad)
1. The original assessee, who is now represented by his legal representative, was a member of the DMK Party, but he was not an employee thereof. He was a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council in 1964 and became its Chairman in April, 1970. The statement of the case in the earlier part states that during the period November, 1969, to June, 1970, the assessee received gifts from many personal friends and contributions by way of donations from others during public meetings connected with his birthday and the total amount of Rs. 48,176 was handed over to him and was utilised for construction of a house by him. In another part of the statement of the case, it is stated that a committee was formed for the celebration of the deceased assessee's 64th birthday and the house was handed over to him at a function got up for the occasion.2. The Income-tax Officer in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1971-72 expressly referred to the fact "that the sum of Rs. 48,176 was colle...
Tag this Judgment!Dasaprakash Bottling Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: [1986]159ITR690(Mad)
Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The assessee entered into an agreement of sale on February 2, 1971, with Chennai Bottling Company under which the assessee sold the running concern by the name of Dasaprakash Bottling Company for a sum of Rs. 32,70,898. The actual money received by the vendor was Rs. 8,25,000 and the purchaser took over liabilities of the value of Rs. 24,45,898. Admittedly, the value of tangible assets was as under : Rs.Value of current assets 9,81,402Buildings 6,48,749Machinery 6,25,821-----------22,55,972----------- Thus, there was an overall surplus of Rs. 10,69,346 received by the assessee. 2. Out of the above said amount, the Income-tax Officer worked out the profit under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at Rs. 2,01,841. In respect of the balance amount of Rs. 8,67,505, the assessee's case was that this was relatable to the transfer of goodwill and, therefore, not taxable as capital gains in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Ratnam Nadar : [1969]71ITR433(Ma...
Tag this Judgment!English Electric Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Mad)135; [1987]168ITR513(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The assessee is a public limited company and for the assessment year 1970-71, the company claimed relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The company claimed relief at 8% on Rs. 60,43,669, while the Income-tax Officer allowed deduction of 8 per cent. only on Rs. 50,02,346. The items held impermissible for the purpose of deduction at 8 per cent. were (1) profit on sale of assets Rs. 1,09,492; and (2) interest on deposits Rs. 92,550. The Income-tax Officer held that these sums did not form a part of the income arising out of a priority industry. The Tribunal, in appeal filed by the assessee, took the view that the interest on deposits and profit on sale of assets could not be considered as profits arising from manufacturing of articles and that every item of profit in a manufacturing organisation would not constitute manufacturing profits. Taking the view that the profit must emanate from the activity of manufacturing the articles, the Tribunal fou...
Tag this Judgment!P. Amirthavalli Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: [1987]164ITR63(Mad)
M.V. Chandurkar, C.J.1. There was a partition in November, 1959, between one Ponnuswamy and his son, Thiagarajan. When Ponnuswamy died in February, 1973, he left behind his widow, four daughters and a separated son, Thiagarajan. In proceedings before the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, the accountable person, i.e., the widow of Ponnuswamy, contended that under section 7(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, the only interest that would cease on the death of Ponnuswamy would be half because in the hands of Ponnuswamy, the property was joint family property and she being a member of the Hindu undivided family, she was entitled to a half share in the Hindu undivided family property. This contention was rejected by the Assistant Controller, the Appellate Controller as well as the Tribunal. The authorities including the Tribunal consistently took the view that Ponnuswamy was a single surviving coparcener and, therefore, there was no coparcenary in existence and the wife did not have any ind...
Tag this Judgment!Abbas Bhai and Two ors. Vs. T. Deivayani Ammal and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ288
ORDERK. Shanmugham, J.1. I am thoroughly satisfied that this is a vexatious proceeding to which the petitioners have resorted in assailing an interim order made by the Court below in I.A. No. 19379 of 1985 in O.S.No. 8117 of 1985. The suit itself was brought by the first respondent herein against the present petitioners for a declaration that she is entitled to the easementary right of light and air passing through the 4 ventilators and one window from east to west on the northern wall of the first floor of her property and for a permanent injunction restraining the present petitioners from digging foundation for their southern wall in flush with her northern wall in any manner whatsoever and from constructing their building in any way which will affect the free flow of light and air to the plaintiff's building through the four ventilators and one window referred to. Pending suit, the first respondent herein came forward with I.A. No. 19379 of 1985 for an interim injunction restraining...
Tag this Judgment!Gunasekaran (Deceased) and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1986
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR244]; (1986)IILLJ408Mad
ORDER1. Petitioners are legal representatives of one S. Gunasekaran, who joined Government Service as a Junior Engineer and was working under the first respondent. He filed the writ petition to quash the order of the first respondent dated 5th March, 1981 directing the period of his suspension from 5th July, 1974 to 3rd January, 1978 to be treated as leave to which petitioner would be eligible. He dies during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he had stated as follows. In 1974 he was in charge of supervising the work providing laterite soling of the 60' road east of the Pallavan Transport Depot at Vyasarpadi. On a suspicion that he had committed certain irregularities he was placed under suspension by order, dated 10th June, 1974 with effect from 5th June, 1974. An enquiry was conducted on a charge of illegal gratification alleged to have been received by him from a cont...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »