Chennai Court February 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sofi Samas Thaikkal Rep. by Its Trustee T.G. Miajan Vs. the District R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ375
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by Safi Somas Thaikkal, Thanjavur, represented by its Trustee, for quashing the order made by the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, the second respondent herein in R.P.No. 97 of 1979 dated 10.1.1981.2. It is inter alia stated in the affidavit sworn to T.H. Miajan, the trustee of the petitioner Thaikkal, that the 4th respondent herein T.K. Nagappan filed an application before the Record Officer during the year 1975 for recording his name as tenant in the approved Record of Tenancy rights in respect of an extent of 0-68 cents in T.S.No. 3678 of Keraikollai village of Thanjavur District belonging to the petitioner herein. The Record Officer, Thanjavur passed orders in Form V No. 575/75, dated 16.4.1976 for inclusion of the name of the 4th respondent Nagappan as tenant in the suit lands. Against the said order of the Record Officer Thanjavur, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Revenue Divisional ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Balamuralikrishna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(Mad)18; [1988]171ITR447(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The question which has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 30,000 received by the assessee on the occasion of the celebration of his completion of 30 years of service rendered to carnatic music was not taxable at the assessee's hands ?' 2. The assessee, Sri M. Balamuralikrishna, who is a musician by profession, had in his return for the assessment year 1971-72 disclosed in Part IV of the return, receipt of a sum of Rs. 30,000 which he claimed was not his income and was, therefore, liable for exemption from income-tax. This amount of Rs. 30,000 was given to the assessee by 'Balamuralikrishna Fans' in appreciation of his completion of 30 years' service rendered to carnatic music. 3. The Income-tax Officer treated this amount as professional income and brought it t...
K.A. Mohideen Pitchai Vs. Gift-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR96(Mad)
Swamikkannu, J. 1. The determination arrived at by the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madurai, on appeal under section 24 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, from the order dated March 17, 1979, passed by the IV Gift-tax Officer, Tirunelveli, has not discussed the contents of the deed in which the purpose for which the trust has been created can be available. When that portion of the gift deed is not extracted nor discussed so as to come to a decision the conclusion arrived at cannot be said to be correct and in accordance with law. While dealing with the provisions of section 5(1)(va)(ii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, both the IV Gift-tax Officer, Tirunelveli, as well as the Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madurai, have not taken into consideration the religious purpose for which the charity has been created. In the instant case, it is common ground that on the day of Ramzan, poor people have to be fed which is one of the objects. Unless the purpose is sectarian and communal, even though it may mention a pa...
K. Chandrasekaran Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ205
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. The orders under challenge in this writ petition are the one passed by the 4th respondent on 13.12.1982, confirmed by the 3rd respondent on 6.4.1983 and further confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his order dated 'Nil' received by the petitioner on 2.5.1984.2. The petitioner was working as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force when he was suspended by an order dated 1.3.1982. The suspension order was followed by a charge memo dated 10.3.1982 issued under Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.4.1982. The disciplinary authority himself (Asst. Security Officer) functioned as Enquiry Officer and after completing the enquiry, a provisional conclusion was reached by him and on the basis of that conclusion, a second show cause notice was issued under Rule 44(10)(2) of the Rules proposing a punishment of reduction of petitioner's pay by two stages for a period of one year. Th...
M.V. Nallamuthu Pillai Charitable Trust by Its Trustee Vs. State of Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ244
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. A Trust when once created, has to spend its money for the objectives of the said trust. In the instant case, the orders of the Government which are now sought to be quashed in these two writ petitions are not even on the very face of it, a speaking order. The order simply states that the Trust is indulging in sectarian and communal activities. This is an observation which is not fortified by any evidence. There is no instance worth-mentioning that the Trust in question had indulged in spending money for non-objectives.The Government Order M.S.1803, Revenue, dated 1st August, 1978, very much speaks about the percentage of the amount to be spent on the objectives should be more than 50%. In the instant case, we find that the trust has spent only a little money and has saved and kept the remaining income in order that the same may fetch interest and also grow in its value so as to utilise for the objective of the very institution, namely to build Kalyanamandapam and...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.R. Alagappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: [1988]173ITR82(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee who is a chemical engineer by profession has his only source of income from a business carried on in the Industrial Estate under the self-employment scheme. For the assessment year 1973-74, he had returned an income of Rs. 20,184 against which he claimed unabsorbed depreciation and development allowance of earlier years of Rs. 5,163 as well as relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), to the extent of Rs. 15,869. The Income-tax Officer did not allow the relief under section 80J as, according to him, the assessee did not satisfy the condition laid down in...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. T.P.S.H. Selva Saroja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: [1988]171ITR435(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. This order will govern both T.C. No. 143 of 1978 and T.C. No. 520 of 1979. The four questions which have been referred at the instance of the Revenue to this court are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 6,62,400 was not includible under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act in the principal value of the estate of the deceased 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act would not apply in respect of the properties covered by the settlement deeds dated December 11, 1953, and December 10, 1954 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire value of all the properties given by the deceased under the partition deed cannot be included in the principal value of the estate o...
Sri Sattanathaswamy Devasthanam by Trustee Dharmapuram Adheenam Mutt V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ85
Sathiadev, J.1. First claimant in O.P.-No. 9/79 on the file of the Sub Court, Mayuram, is the appellant. Second claimant in the first respondent and petitioner therein is the second respondent herein. On the learned Judge holding that second claimant-tenant is entitled to one-fourth share in the enhanced compensation granted by Sub-Court, this appeal is preferred.2. On a reference at the instance of the first claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Sub-Court held that the proper compensation payable for the lands could be Rs. 125 instead of Rs. 10.50 per cent fixed by Land Acquisition Officer in the award proceedings. First claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 200 per cent. The extent involved is 68 cents of wet lands in R.S. No. 74/2 in Vilanthidasamuthiram Village, which was acquired for the purpose of putting up a school building. The Sub Court has pointed out that admittedly the second claimant is the cultivating tenant of the entire acquired land for a period of 13...
In the Matter of P.K. Pattabhiraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad271
ORDERRamalingam, J.1. The first two applications have been filed by the learned Official Assignee, against the respondent Canara Bank, T. Nagar, Branch, Madras under the following circumstances. In these two applications, the prayer of the Official Assignee is for vesting the machineries and stock detailed in Schedule A to the report of the Official Assignee, free from any hypothecation in favour of the respondent by virtue of Section 52(2)(c) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Appln. No. 309 of 1986 is by the Canara Bank, third party, for directing the Official Assignee to hand over the machineries, electrical equipments, furnitures and fixtures, office equipments, tools, stocks including finished and semi finished goods either found specifically in the security document like hypothecation agreement or not and further permit the Bank to sell, and appropriate the net sale proceeds after defraying the expenses of the sale towards the liability due by the insolvents, P. K. Pattabira...
Official Assignee Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ225
ORDERRamalingam, J.1. The first two applications have been filed by the learned Official Assignee against the respondent Canara Bank. T. Nagar Branch, Madras, under the following circumstances: In these two applications, the prayer of the Official Assignee is for vesting the machineries and stock detailed in schedule A to the report of the Official Assignee, free from any hypothecation in favour of the respondent by virtue of Section 52(2)(c) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Application No. 309 of 1986 is by the Canara Bank, third party, for directing the Official Assignee to hand over the machineries, electrical equipments, furnitures and fixtures, office equipments, tools, stocks including finished and semi finished goods either found specifically in the security document like hypothecation agreement or not and further permit the Bank to sell and appropriate the net sale proceeds after defraying the expenses of the sale towards the liability due by the insolvents, P.K. Pattabi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›