Chennai Court March 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.
Pani and anr. Vs. Vasudevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ400
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 128 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul. The appellants are the second-defendant; and the purchaser of the suit-property subsequent to the judgment and decree of the Court below, who has been brought on record as a second appellant by orders passed in C.M.P. No. 3248 of 1981 on 31.7.1981. There is no need to go into the merits of the case, since I feel obliged to sustain the legal point raised by Mrs. Bhavani Kumar, learned Counsel for the second-appellant. This submission of the learned Counsel for the second-appellant has got the support of the learned Counsel for the first-appellant. On 18.10.1978, the counsel for the second-defendant, who alone was on record at that time, reported 'no instructions'. The second-defendant was obliged to appear in person. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 in Chief and Exs. A-1 to A-7 were marked. When the second-defendant was called up...
M.J. Durairaj Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Mandaveli Division, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC199(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a writ petition filed for quashing the order of the respondent made in TNGST No. 58193/69-70 dated 28th March, 1974. It is, inter alia, stated in the affidavit sworn to by M. J. Durairaj, the petitioner herein, as follows : 2. The petitioner had been assessed to sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 80,254.88 for the assessment year 1969-70 on the basis of a sale which he was alleged to have made to one M/s. Viswanatha Rupa & Company, Madras-1. The only indication for the aforesaid sale was an observation made by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal while disposing of an appeal pertaining to M/s. Viswanatha Rupa & Company. The assessment order dated 28th March, 1974 and which is impugned in this writ petition does not indicate for what period M/s. Viswanatha Rupa & Company has been assessed to sales tax, which assessment, according to the department amongst others, pertains to a transaction between him and the said Viswanatha Rupa & Company. It would appear that Vis...
M.S. Thanigachala Pillai Vs. Rukmani Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad99
Ratnam, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. 162 of 1976, District Munsif Court, Sholinghur, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was instituted by the first respondent herein for a declaration of her title to the suit properties and for an injunction, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession, against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3. The suit properties are two in number. The first respondent claimed title to the suit properties on the strength of a settlement deed executed by her brother, Linga Pillai, on 24-9-1971. According to the case of the first respondent, Linga Pillai was the absolute owner of the suit properties, having got them under a registered Will executed by one Pattammal on 15-4-1968. Pattammal, according to the first respondent, in turn obtained the suit properties under a partition deed dt. 21-10-1961 between the appellant, Pattammal and another. The further case of the first respondent was that the appellant had no manner of right or interest...
Annamalai Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1988
Reported in: (1993)IIMLJ419
ORDER1. The only point raised by the petitioner in writ petition is that when an enquiry has been ordered under the Police Standing Orders to be conducted either by the Executive Magistrate or by any other Magistrate of the rank of a Sub-Collector or Collector, there should not be any obstruction for the enquiry being continued, when the same had been started by a competent police officer. This is the submission made by Mr. R. Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is inter alia contended in the accompanying affidavit sworn to by the petitioner that on 18-5-1981 the caste Hindus of Melathiruppanthuruthi formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, committed rioting attacked the Harijans and set fire to the Harijan huts. Number of persons were injured and some of the huts were set to fire. The petitioner is one of the victims who had been severaly injured in the attack, and this was the sequence of an incident that took place on 17-5-1981. The police opened fire to protect ...
P.V. Chandrasekaran and ors. Vs. Thirumalai Chit Funds by Partner K.L. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ394
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This petition is filed by the appellants, who are the defendants, to grant leave to them to file the appeal as indigent person, against the judgment in O.S. No. 361 of 1983 Sub Court, Salem. It is alleged in the affidavit filed by the second petitioner, for himself and on behalf of other appellants, in support of the said application that a preliminary decree was passed against them directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 7,41,699.18 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 5,01,600 from the date of the decree till the date of realisation, on the basis of deposit of title deeds on 22.10.1982 and that the said suit was decreed on incorrect appreciation of facts and law. They have no means or resources to pay the requisite court-fee of Rs. 56,003.75. It is further alleged that apart from an investment of Rs. 28,000 with the United Solvent Extractions Private Limited at Duriva Kurichi and a monthly income of Rs. 200, he has no other movable or immovable p...
R.N. Goenka Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1988
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(Mad)50; [1989]176ITR129(Mad)
Srinivasan, J.1. The question which is raised in these petitions is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax refunds which became due after the valuation date constitute an asset chargeable to wealth-tax ?' 2. The Tribunal has decided against the assessee, relying upon the ruling of this court in T. V. Srinivasan v. CWT : [1985]152ITR599(Mad) . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said decision of this court requires to be reconsidered inasmuch as the Division Bench had not considered the question as to how, on the valuation date, the advance tax already paid by the assessee under the Income-tax Act could be considered to be his asset. It was held in that case that the entire advance tax paid will be an asset of the assessee and the entire accrued income-tax liability for the relevant accounting year will be a debt owed by the assessee to the Government with the result that the excess advance tax paid will continue to have ...
Enfield India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC156; 1988(19)LC116(Madras)
ORDER1. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on this day, upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 4-6-1981 and made herein and the records relating to the prayers aforesaid dated 14-5-1981 on the file of the first respondent in all the petitions comprised in the return of said respondents to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. K. Seshadri, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr. P. Narasimhan, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions, the court made the following Order : The main point that is stressed, on behalf of the petitioner, by Mr. T. K. Seshadri, is that the relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Act 51 of 1975 and Act 1 of 1944 respectively, have not been properly understood by the Revisional Authority, while passing the impugn...
Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries Madras (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)69CTR(Mad)135; [1988]173ITR311(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The question which has been referred in this reference at the instance of the assessee is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 5 lakhs being the premium paid by the assessee to the owners of the land in connection with obtaining lease thereof for excavating clay therefrom for its business and the expenditure of Rs. 30,274 incurred in connection therewith were only capital expenditure and hence not allowable ?' 2. The assessee is a company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of tiles and potteries. On September 10, 1970, the assessee company took on lease 3.75 acres and 5.03 acres of land in survey Nos. 440 and 441, respectively. It also took on lease certain other lands belonging to the same owners, A. R. Krishnamoorthy and A. R. Rajagopalan. These two owners are also directors of the assessee-company. The transaction of lease is evidenced by a registered document of lease. The period of the lease was 10 year...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›