Chennai Court October 1989 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.
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B.R. Venkatachalapathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1989
Reported in: [1990]184ITR396(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. These three tax case reference are at the instance of the revenue. 2. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in compliance with direction of this court given under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act and made in T.C. P. Nos. 142 to 144 of 1978, has drawn up a consolidated statement of the case relating to the assessment year 1965-67 to 1968-69. 3. The common question of law referred to this court for its opinion reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law holding that the provision of section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act as they stood before the amendment should be basis for the computing of penalty under section 18(1)(a) notwithstanding the fact that the default continued even after April 1, 1969 ?' 4. The Wealth-tax officer levied penalties for the delay in filing the wealth-tax returns in the sums of Rs. 72,400, Rs. 81,600 and Rs. 1,05,900, respectively, for the assessment year in question ...
Mary Thomas and ors. Vs. Dr. K.E. Thomas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ332
S. Ramalingam, J.1. Civil Suit Diary No. 20871 of 1988 was filed by the appellant (wife) against the respondent, her husband, on the Original Side of this Court, praying for a judgment and decree for a permanent injunction against the respondent (defendant) from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of certain property, for a declaration that the power of attorney executed by her to the respondent is unenforceable, for accounts for the amounts specified in Schedule 'A' to the plaint and for return of all the documents specified in the plaint Schedule 'C', the documents being title deeds, etc. By orders dated 24-11-1988 Abdul Hadi, J. held that the suit is not maintain-able in entirety and the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation before the Family Court.2. The learned Judge held that the expression 'District Court' in Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', includes the High Court, particularly because of Se...
A.J. Dastagir Alias A.J. Mohammed Meera, Proprietor Taj Mahal Hotel Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ39
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, in C.M.A. No. 3 of 1986. The revision petitioner is the petitioner-tenant in O.P. No. 5 of 1975 and also the appellant before the Sub-Court.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows:-The father of the revision petitioner took the petition mentioned vacant land on lease on 23.10.1950 from the deceased second respondent in O.P. No. 5 of 1975 and other joint owners, and he put up a superstructure and was running a hotel. After his father's death the petitioner continued to be the tenant. The City Tenants Protection Act was extended ended to Karaikudi Municipal area on 14.12.1955. The first respondent, after obtaining sale of the property from the other sharers filed the suit O.S. No. 429 of 1974, against the revision petitioner and his sister for eviction. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 5 of 1975 under Section 9 of the ...
Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharmaraja Education Charity Trust Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1989
Reported in: [1990]182ITR80(Mad)
Bhaskaran, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the tribunal that section 10(22) of the income tax act does not apply and that sections 11 to 13 of the act alone have to be applied is justifiable in law ' 2. For the assessment year 1966-67 (period of assessment is from July 1, 1965, to March 31, 1966), the assessee was assessed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), as a public charitable trust by the Income-tax Officer, Virudhunagar. The Income-tax Officer determined the total income at Rs. 1,61,182 and allowed 25% to be accumulated, i.e., Rs. 40,295 and out of the net balance of Rs. 1,20,887, he deducted a sum of Rs. 1,16,532, being expenditure incurred towards charitable purposes, viz., towards schools and hostels, and found a sum of Rs. 4,355 as excess of income over ...
A. Srinivasulu Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. Gajaraj Mehta and Sons, by Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ188
Bellie, J.1. The point that arises in this second appeal is: Whether the sale held by the pawner of the jewelleries pledged is not valid? The plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed the suit for redemption of the jewels pledged with the defendant or in the alternative for a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 91,200 being the value of the jewels with interest thereon. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court (V. Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) and the appeal filed by the plaintiff also was dismissed by the first appellate Court (VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras).2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff pledged with the defendant certain jewels. In this connection the plaintiff has pleaded certain facts regarding the actual amounts received, payments of discharge and execution of two mortgages etc. and the defendant has contended certain facts repudiating the allegations made by the plaintiff against him. We are now in this appeal not concerned w...
The Management of Indian Bank Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ50Mad
Srinivasan, J.1. The management of Indian Bank is aggrieved by the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal Madras, in I.D. No. 16 of 1981 holding that the second respondent herein is a workman as defined by Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and granting a declaration that she is deemed to be in service and would be entitled to a quantified amount of Rs. 100/- per month from 2nd May 1978 until her reemployment by the management. 2. The second respondent became a Tiny Deposit Agent by virtue of a written contract marked as Ex. M. 3 dated 3rd March 1977 between her and the Bank. There was also an order of appointment dated 21st February 1977 which is marked as Ex. M. 2. By letter dated 2nd May 1978 the Bank purported to terminate the agency of the second respondent. The second respondent raised a dispute through the union that she was a workman as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act and the termination was not justified. On reference to the Tribunal, it was held by the Tribun...
Md. QuamruddIn and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ353
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, herein after referred to as the Act, which has culminated in a notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act. The petitioners challenge this notice in this writ petition.2. The 3rd respondent applied for acquisition of the land and building bearing R.S.No. 2776/7 of P.K.M. Village, corresponding to door No. 53, Kandaswamy Koil Street, Kosapet, Madras-12 with an extent of 1785 sq.ft. for Corporation School purposes. The notification under Section 4(1) was approved by the Government on 21.3.1986 and was published in the Government Gazette on 16.4.1986. The enquiry under Section 5(A) was conducted on 19.11.1986 and nobody turned up for the enquiry. However, the petitioners appeared on 19.11.1986 and represented that they were in a position to appear for the enquiry on 19.11.1986 and wanted time to file their objections on the day itself. They were enquired and the petition...
N.C. Sankaralingam and ors. Vs. P.M. Palanivel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ349
Sathiadev. J.1. All these appeals are preferred against the orders passed on 20.12.1983 in W.P.No. 773 of 1979. WA.No. 61 of 1984 is filed by respondents 4, 5 and 6 in the writ petition and W.A.No. 776 of 1984 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 W.A.No. 835 of 1984 is filed by two persons, who claim to be affected by the said judgment.2. The crucial point involved in these appeals is, whether Rule 2(14) of Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (viz. the Preliminary and the General Rules) (hereinafter referred to as General Rules) is a rule of seniority or not? The learned Judge without assigning the required reasonings had abruptly concluded that a reading of this rule suggests that the date of appointment will be the date of the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Service Commission inviting applications for recruitment, and therefore, the contention of the petitioners is acceptable. Hence, by this manner of conclusion arrived at, more than one writ appeal had come to be filed...
Ravi Steel Corporation Vs. Income-tax Officer and Other.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1989
Reported in: (1991)82CTR(Mad)9; [1991]187ITR684(Mad)
BAKTHAVATSALAM J. - The petitioner challenges the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in revision under section 264 of the Act.Notice of motion was ordered by S. Ramalingam J. on July 21, 1989.Mr. C. V. Rajan, Government Advocate, appears for the Department. He points out the amendment made to section 139 of the Income-tax Act under the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act. 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971. Under the amended provision, the levy of interest is automatic unlike the provision as it was before the amendment. Therefore, In my view, the decision reported in CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar : [1985]151ITR433(SC) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The assessment year in this case is 1981-82 to which the amended section applies.Mr. R. Janakiraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the decision reported in Ajit Singh Rais v. CIT . I find from the facts of that case, that that case r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›