Chennai Court February 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.
The Indian Bank, by Its Custodian Vs. S. Krishnaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ46
Bakthavatsalam,J. 1. The defendants appeal from a common judgment of Shanmukham, J., in C.S.Nos.31 and 33 of 1974.2. Originally these suits were instituted in the City Civil Court, Madras, and were transferred to this Court. C.S. No. 31 of 1974 is a suit for a declaration that the debt or debts in respect of which the respondents/plaintiffs stood liable as sureties or otherwise in respect of the loan to Shree Bharathy Mills Limited, Pondicherry, for the appellant defendant is/are no-longer in existence, for a declaration that the arrangement between the appellant/defendant and the principal debtor, Shree Bharathy Mills Ltd. represented by its Authorised Controller on 7.1.1967 and 23.1.1967 discharged the respondents/plaintiffs from all or any liability to the appellant/defendant bank as it extinguished the original debt in respect of which the respondents/plaintiffs undertook liability whether as sureties or otherwise, and for a direction to the appellant/defendant bank to handover to ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chemicals and Plastics (i) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: [1989]179ITR269(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following common question of law for the assessment year 1968-69 to 1972-73, has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the entire royalty paid by the assessee to its foreign collaborator, B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company, under the collaboration agreement dated October 1, 1962, for providing continuing know-how to the assessee was liable to be deducted as revenue expenditure ?' 2. The assessee is a limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing P.V.C. resins and compounds. The company, on October, 1, 1962, entered into a collaboration agreement with B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company, styled as 'Technical Service Agreement', the relevant clauses of which will be noticed in detail later in the course of this judgment. Thereunder, provision was made for payment of royalty by th...
Murugappa and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: [1989]178ITR410(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a firm. The business of the firm is the promotion of companies. In respect of the assessment year 1972-73, it filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 3,741 by way of interest on securities, Rs. 53,813 by way of dividend under the head 'other sources', Rs. 8,770 by way of long term capital gains and a loss of Rs. 76,529 under the head 'Business'. In completing the assessment, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 4,587 incurred in connection with the foreign travel of one of the partners and after computing the business loss and setting of the income by way of interest on securities, capital gains and dividend, the net loss was computed at Rs. 5,618. In doing so, the Income-tax Officer declined to allow deduction under section 80k and 80T of the Income-tax Act 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Aggrieved by that, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner Contending, inter alia, that deductio...
C. Sussela Wife of C. Mohana Krishna Vs. K. Venkatakrishna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ281
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This originating summons has been taken out by the plaintiff beneficiary of a trust . created under a registered will dated 29-8-1970 executed by the plaintiff's mother, the deceased K. Andalammal, who died on 21-10-1983. According to paragraph 12 of the petition, this petition is filed seeking determination of the following questions:(a) Whether the defendants (1 and 2) who are the trustees appointed under the said Will are not liable to render an account to the plaintiff of the income and expenditure relating to the suit property situate at New Door No. 16, Peria Uthandi Street, Madras from 21-10-1983 till the date of the plaint;(b) Whether directions to the defendants 1 and 2 be not given, to pay the plaintiff or to the defendants 3 to 5 who are the children to the plaintiff the surplus amount held by them;(c) Whether directions to the defendants 1 and 2 to deliver the suit property to the defendants 3, 4 and 5 be not given; and(d) Whether the liability of the defen...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax/income-tax Vs. M. Kulandaivelu Pillai (Decd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: [1989]179ITR228(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Income-tax assessment year 1968-69 : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee's addiction to alcohol would constitute reasonable cause for not filing the return within the prescribed time Wealth-tax assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalties levied under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate...
Audco India Ltd. Vs. the Audco India Employees' Union and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)IILLJ200Mad
1. The plaintiff/applicant is a registered company engaged in the manufacture of industrial pipeline valves and oilfield equipment and the manufactured equipments are mostly supplied to public sector undertakings like Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Nuclear Power Corporation, Thermal Power Plants, Fertilisers and Petrochemical Complexes, Steel Plants Oil Industries, Refineries, Heavy Water Projects, Hydro Electric Power Stations and other Government projects of national importance. The company is also making supplies to foreign countries earning foreign exchange. The current annual turn over is stated to be 25 crores of rupees. The manufacture of valves has been declared to be a public utility service for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government of Tamil Nadu till 27th June 1989. A settlement between the management of the company and the workers expired on 31st March 1988 and the union of employees placed a character of demands on 16th June 1988. As the could ...
H.C. Lodha Vs. Dr. C. Ranganathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1989
Reported in: AIR1989Mad225
1. There are six revisions arising under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, These revisions were heard by learned single Judge of this Court. In C.R.Ps. 382, 383 and 4305 of 1981, Sengottuvelan, J. felt a difficulty with regard to arriving at the market value of the site, in which the building is constructed for determining the fair rent for the building. The learned Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench. The Division Bench which heard the said three revisions on reference, found that of the pronouncements of two learned single Judges of this Court one of Ratnam, J. in Chelladurai v. Paramanand Jindal : (1980)2MLJ441 and the other of Sathiadev, J. in Shams Unnissa Begum v. C. K. Nanjiah : (1980)2MLJ9 taking different views, a Division Bench in Kaliammal v. AthiV.Ramachandran : (1983)2MLJ252 accepted the view of Sathiadev, J. in Shams Unnissa Begum v. C. K. Nanjiah : (1980)2MLJ9 Overruling the view of Ratnam, J...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Marshall Sons and Co. Mfg. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Mad)6; [1989]180ITR66(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in mining and quarrying equipment. For the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee claimed relief under section 80-I of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In considering this claim of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer, after arriving at the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,86,145, proceeded to set off unabsorbed depreciation from 1965-66 and adjust business losses of the years 1965-66 to 1970-71 to arrive at 'nil' taxable income and, in that view, declined to grant the relief claimed by the assessee under section 80-I of the Act. On appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was contended that the relief under section 80-I of the Act should have been considered without taking into account the unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward losses of the previous years. Relying upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Indian Trans...
P. Krishnan Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1989
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ429
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction O.S. No. 402 of 1972, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee. The first-defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff is the first-respondent. The second-defendant died pending the suit and the third-defendant, who is the second-respondent herein was added as the legal representative. The relationship amongst the parties runs as follows: The second-defendant was the father. One krishnammal was his second wife. The plaintiff, the first-defendant and the third-defendant through his first wife. The suit-property was a joint acquisition by the second-defendant and Krishnammal. The pleas of the defendants that the acquisition in the name of Krishnammal, was only benami for the second-defendant has been rejected by the two Courts below, as having no substance. On 15.9.1971, as per Ex.A.2, there was a Will by the second-defendant and Krishnammal, as per the terms of which the suit-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.M. Jagannathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)76CTR(Mad)1; [1989]180ITR191(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in excluding the annual letting value of the property in respect of the portion under the occupation of the firm while computing the income from property in the hands of the assessee partner (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that for the purpose of section 22, the business carried on by the firm should be taken as the business carried on by the partner and that, therefore, no income from property should be computed in respect of this portion of property occupied by the firm is sustainable in law ?' 2. The assessee is an individual having income from property, business in money lending, share income from K. M. K. Jaggannathan and Co. and other sources. In relation to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »