Chennai Court April 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 Special Officer, Varadarajaswami Silk Handloom Weavers Co-operativ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ379
Sathiadev, J.1. Seven members of Ammaiyarkuppam Saravanan Weavers ' Co-operative Society, Ammaiyarkuppam-petitioners in W.P. No. 11904 of 1988 are the appellants herein and the four respondents therein are the respondents herein. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.11.1988 in W.M.P.Nos. 17747 and 20091 of 1988 in W.P. No. 11904 of 1988.2. The writ petition was filed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to maintain the status quo as on 13.4.1988 permitting the petitioners to function as members of the Board of Management of the said society, and pending its disposal, in W.M.P. N0. 17747 of 1988, they have sought for an interim direction which is no different from the prayer made in the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 preferred W.M.P. No. 20091 of 1988 to vacate the interim stay granted pending the writ petition on 7.10.1988, and both these W.M.Ps.came to be disposed of together on 18.11.1988, vacating the interim direction given on 7.10.1983, dism...
Thangammal (Died) and ors. Vs. Nariamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ183
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The controversy in these second appeals stems out of rival claims put forth by the parties for title to an extent of acres 7.30 in S. No. 1575 in Kunnathur village, Vilavancode Taluk. Originally the suit property belonged to one Kesava Pillai Kumara Pillai. There was a sale by Kesava Pillai Kumara Pillai in favour of Cherian Nadan Mathavan Nadan on 20.4.1101 (M.E.) Kesava Pillai Kumara Pillai filed O.S. No. 43 of 1102 (M.E.) on the file of the District Court of Nagercoil praying for cancellation of the sale in respect of the suit property, for declaration of his title thereto and for other reliefs. His case was there was no agreement or intention to convey the suit property to the vendee Cherian Nadan Mathavan Nadan and the suit property was included in the sale deed on account of fraud perpetrated on him. That suit got disposed of on 19.2.1105 (M.E.) corresponding to 5th October, 1929 and Kesava Pillai Kumara Pillai was accorded a decree for declaration that the ...
Mahalingam Vs. Kannayyan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad333
1. In this Second Appeal, the scramble is for the property which originally belonged to one Lakshmana Pillai.Lakshmana Pillai had a first wife by name Parvathammal.He also had a second wife by name Marudambal Achi.We are not concerned with the second wife Lakshmana Pillai had no male issues.He had two daughters. Sampoornam and Amirthavalli.The plaintiff in the suit is the son of Sampooranam.The first defendant in the suit is the son of Amirthavalli.The second defendant is the father of the first-defendant.On 11-6-1934 Lakhshmana Pillai executed a deed of settlement as per the original of Ex.A.1. giving the suit property to his first wife Parvathammal for her life and delineating the devolution to his heirs after the lifetime of Pravathammal.On 8-6-1964 Lakshmana Pillai took in adoption the plaintiff, as we could see from Ex.A.2.Lakshmana Pillai died thereafter.On 18-6-1976,as per Ex.B.1, Parvathammal executed as Will giving the suit-property to the first-defendant.Parvathammal died in ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late W.S. Seshachala Gramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Mad)246; [1989]180ITR431(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (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 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the requirements of the proviso to section 12(1) have been satisfied in this case and hence the value of the properties covered under the settlement deed dated February 15, 1942, should not be included in the principal value of the estate of the deceased 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the default of payment of Rs. 75 per month by the settlor would per se lead to surrender of interest or right reserved by the settlor and that no document is necessary to evidence the surrender of right two years before the death of the deceased ?' 2. Sri. W. S. Seshachala Gramani died on June 4, 1958. Under a settlement deed dated Feb...
Mahalingam Vs. Kannayyan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ341
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In this second appeal, the scramble is for the property which originally belonged to one Lakshmana Pillai. Lakshmana Pillai had a first wife by name Parvathammal. He also had a second wife by name Marudambal Achi. We are not concerned with the second wife Lakshmana Pillai had no male issues. He had two daughters. Sam-poornam and Amirthavalli. The plaintiff in the suit is the son of Sampoornam. The first defendant in the suit is the son of Amirthavali. The second defendant is the father of the first-defendant. On 11-6-1934 Lakshmana Pillai executed a deed of settlement as per the original of Ex.A.1.giving the suit property to his first wife Parvathammal for her life and delineating the devolution to his heirs after the lifetime of Para-vathammal. On 8-6-1964 Lakshmana Pillai took in adoption the plaintiff, as we could see from Ex.A.2. Lakshmana Pillai died thereafter. On 18-6-1976, as per Ex.B.1, Paravathammal executed a Will giving the suit-property to the first-d...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. K. Marappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR489(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. Under section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the 'gifts' arose at the time when the assessee spent the amounts of the benefit of his son, and not at the time when he had actually written off the entire debit balance standing in the account of his son and, consequently, the gifts should have to be severally assessed in the relevant years in which the amounts were spent by the assessee on his son ?' 2. The assessee, an individual, was originally assessed to gift-tax on November 30, 1972, in respect of certain lands settled on his grandson by means of a settlement deed. While examining the accounts for the assessment year 1972-73, the Gift-tax Officer noticed that a sum of Rs. 55,633.10 was forgone by the assessee in ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Ganu Rao and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Mad)28; [1990]185ITR324(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs. 17,123 representing interest attributable to the advances made by the firm to the Hindu undivided family of Shri Ganu Rao for non-business purposes, viz., construction of building for the Hindu undivided family ?' 2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in supplying leather goods, metal goods, textiles and woollen goods to the police and military departments. While finalising the assessment for the assessment year 1975-76, the Income-tax Officer considered the question of allowing the payment of interest on advances secured by the firm and it was found that the firm had advanced monies to the Hindu undivided family for the construction of a house. The...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. A. Nissar Ahmed. (Accountable Person of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]183ITR188(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. On the death of one Haji Mohammed Ismail Sahib on April, 4, 1971, an account was filed by the accountable person declaring the principal value of the estate at Rs. 4,63,165. In completing the assessment under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty brought to duty Rs. 3,92,700 as dutiable estate under section 17 of the Act. It was found that the deceased had transferred by way of sale a property at Tiruvottiyer High Road, Madras, in January, 1961, to Taj Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Taj Flour Mills' for short) for Rs. 50,000. Taking note of the shares held by the deceased as well as his relatives in Taj Flour Mills, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty considered that company to be a 'controlled company' within the meaning of section 17 of the Act. While considering the benefits derived by the deceased from the controlled company for the purpose of computing the val...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Umadevi Bhuwalka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1989
Reported in: [1990]181ITR547(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to s 'the Act'), the following two questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal war right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 is not assessable in the assessment year 1955-56 (2) Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal is a reasonable one to take on the facts and in the circumstance of the case ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and the reference relates to the assessment year 1955-56. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Income-tax Officer, found that the assessee e deposited on June 8, 1954, and June 10, 1954, two sums of Rs. 50,000 each, that those amounts were withdrawn on January 29, 1955, and March, 2, 1955, respectively, and advanced to the late Bajranglal Bhuwalka, who introduced the same in the books of Rambilas Nandlal in his own n...
G. Padmanabha Chettiar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1989
Reported in: (1989)77CTR(Mad)107; [1990]182ITR1(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In these references under section 256(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, the following common question of law has been referred the opinion of this court for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 14,763, Rs. 15,228 and Rs. 16,428 were chargeable to income-tax and the amounts of Rs. 10,246, Rs. 7,600 and Rs. 2,638 were proper deductions for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, respectively ' 2. The assessee is a registered firm dealing in cloth and has been maintaining its accounts on the mercantile basis. There was another firm, M. R. Govindasami Chettiar and Sons, in which one G. Padmanabha Chettiar was a partner, representing the joint family, of which he was the karta. That firm was dissolved on April 13, 1969, and its assets and liabilities were taken over by G. Padmanabha Chettiar who agreed to pay off the other partners as well. Of the amoun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »