Chennai Court January 1990 Judgments
Anaikar Traders and Estates (P.) Ltd. (No. 1) Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Mad)218; [1990]186ITR175(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The assessee is a company incorporated on May 5, 1967. The main object of the company as could be gathered from clause 3(A)(i) of the memorandum of association. Is to purchase, take on lease or mortgage or otherwise acquire and possess lands, buildings or real estate, freehold or otherwise, lands with their superstructures and appurtenances, whether movable or immovable. In order to attain the aforesaid main object of the company, clause 3(B)(i) of the memorandum of association stated that an incidental or ancillary object was to undertake to sell or lease or mortgage the whole or part of any property, land, buildings, structures, movable or immovable, of the company in furtherance of its objects. For the accounting periods ending on July 31, 1968 and July 31, 1969, relevant to the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the assessee returned an income of Rs. 3,16,201 and Rs. 2,51,870 respectively under the head 'Business'. However, the Income-tax Officer treated the income...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajagopala Vandayar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Mad)195; [1990]184ITR450(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the applicant is not entitled to claim of loss of Rs. 3,613 under section 32(1)(iii) ?' 2. These assessee carried on business carried on business as a highway contractor. During the previous year ended on March 31, 1972, relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee sold two cars, on which depreciation had already been allowed, and this resulted in a total loss of Rs. 3,613 which in the course of the assessment proceedings was claimed by the assessee to be allowable under section 32(1)(iii) of the Act on the basis only of a profit and loss account, but the Income-tax Officer disallowed the same on the ground that the assessee had not maintained accounts. Before the App...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Chidambaram Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1990
Reported in: I(1992)DMC149; [1990]186ITR256(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In this reference under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the accountable person, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased had full power of disposition over the property left by him and the value of such property was includible in his estate under section 6 of the Estate Duty Act ?' Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this reference are as under : One Thirunavukkarasu Chettiar, at the time of his death on October 19, 1967, was the sole coparcener of the Hindu undivided family consisting of him-self and his wife, Umayal Achi. On the death of Thirunavukkarasu Chettiar on October 19, 1967, his widow, Umayal Achi, was his sole heir. A few months after the death of Thirunavukkarasu Chettiar, his widow, Umayal Achi, adopted Chidambaram on May 1, 1968, a...
Tag this Judgment!Bhel Ancillary Association Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1990
Reported in: 1990(49)ELT58(Mad)
ORDER1. In these two writ petitions, the common prayer is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioners' Members to avail the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and to clear their goods without payment of duty under the said Notification. 2. Inasmuch as no reply affidavit has been filed to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, I take it that the statements made in the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3 are not disputed by the petitioners. This preface is necessary as the decision on the question depends on the facts of the cases. Now, the facts as given in the counter-affidavit of respondents 1 to 3 are : '... M/s. BHEL Ranipet, have been manufacturing various Boiler Components falling under Chapter No. 8404. M/s. BHEL are getting certain components manufactured by the ancillary units which are situated very close to the factory. Hitherto, they have been supplying the raw material to t...
Tag this Judgment!D.T. Deivasigamani Mudaliar and ors. Vs. T. Parandaman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ93
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. C.M.P.No. 9708 of 1987 by defendants 2 to 4 and 7 prays for granting leave to the petitioners to file the appeal A.S.R.No. 52986 of 1986 as indigent persons. The suit, out of which the said appeal arises, viz., O.S.No. 262 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Vellore was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein against the 3rd respondent-trust and other respondents and the petitioners herein, seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 9.8.1979 to sell the plaint schedule trust-properties. The suit was decreed. There are 9 trustees to the above said trust and after the disposal of the suit, a meeting of the trustees was convened, in which 7 trustees attended, and in the said meeting it was resolved by 4:3 majority not to prefer an appeal. The court-fee payable on the appeal comes to about Rs. 16,000. Now, the above said 3 trustees who voted against the said resolution along with another trustee have filed this petition to prefer the said appeal as indigent pers...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sivan Muthiah and ors. Vs. John Sathiavasagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ490
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 75 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai are, the appellants in this appeal. The respondent is the defendant in the suit.2. The plaintiffs laid the suit for specific performance of two agreements of sale in respect of immovable items, both dated 7.11.1973 and marked in the case as Exs.A1 and A2. The plaintiffs themselves were in possession of the properties as tenants under the defendant. Under Ex.A.1 an advance of Rs. 9,000 was paid and under Ex.A2 an advance of Rs. 6,000 was paid. There was a further payment of Rs. 3,500 under Ex.A3 and there is a controversy as to whether it was towards the sale agreements. There were other tenants in the properties and it was stipulated in the sale agreements Exs.A.1 and A2 that on the defendant evicting the tenants and giving notice through registered post to the plaintiffs with regard to delivery of vacant possession, the plaintiffs shall complete the sale within three months from the...
Tag this Judgment!Sugesan Finance Investment Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas298(Mad)
Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. The petitioner has come up to this court praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, introduced by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, (66 of 1988), is invalid and inoperative in so far as the post-dated cheques issued prior to the coming into force of the Act, that is, April 1, 1989, are concerned. 2. The petitioner is a firm carrying on a business in financing. The petitioner has to accept deposits from the public for a fixed period ranging from 6 months to 3 years. It is stated that the petitioner had a record performance with very good reputation and goodwill among the commercial and public sectors. Since 1976, when the petitioner-firm was started till 1982, the petitioner was very regular in the matter of payment if interest and also repayment of the deposit amounts and, during the said period, there was no allegation of any sor...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rangaraj Vs. R.R. Subbayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: II(1990)DMC277
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This first Appeal is by the first defendant in O.S. No. 267 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The respondents herein areas follows : The first-respondent is the first-plaintiff; the second-respondent is the second-plaintiff; the third-respondent is the third-defendant and the fourth-respondent is the fourth-defendant. Defendants 2 and 5 in the suit have been given up in the Appeal. The parties shall be referred to by us as per their array in the suit for the sake of convenience. The plaintiffs laid the suit for partition and separate possession, each of the plaintiffs claiming a one-third share and they conceded the remaining one-third share for the first-defendant. The relationship amongst the parties is as follows : The first-plaintiff earlier married the fifth-defendant, she was divorced by a decree of divorce on 23-6-1961 in O.P. No. 54 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. During the subsistence of the marriage betw...
Tag this Judgment!R. Soundarapandian Vs. Santhanadevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ86
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order in I.A.No. 2763 of 1982 refusing to excuse the delay of 9 months and 20 days in filing the interlocutory application under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act for the purchase of the suit land. The ground alleged for the said delay is illness of the petitioner and the medical certificate produced says that the petitioner was suffering from 'Hemiplegia Rtsid' and was under the doctor's treatment from 3.2.80 to 15.1.81. The suit was filed in 1977 itself against the petitioner-tenant and the abovesaid petition under section 9 of the said Act is said to have been filed on 23.1.81. (The order of the Court below says that it was filed in the year 1982. The petition is no doubt 23.1.1981). The Court below has dismissed the abovesaid petition for excusing the delay on the ground that application under Section 9 (1) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, by the tenant for the purchase of the suit si...
Tag this Judgment!Sugesan Finance Investment Represented by Its Partner, Manoj K. Sheth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1990
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ281
ORDERBakthavatsalam, J.1. The petitioner has come up to this Court praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act introduced by the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Law (Amendment) Act, 66 of 1988 is invalid and inoperative insofar as the post dated cheques issued prior to coming into force of the Act, that is, 1.4.1989 are concerned.2. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business in financing. The petitioner has to accept deposits from the public for a fixed period ranging from 6 months to 3 years. It is stated that the petitioner had a record performance with very good reputation and goodwill among the commercial and public sectors. Since 1976 when the petitioner firm was started till 1982, the petitioner was very regular in the matter of payment of interest and also repayment of the deposit amounts and during the said period there was no allegations of any sort against the petitioner. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »