Chennai Court January 1994 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.
Kaliammal Vs. Sathia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ123
Janarthanam, J.1. The appellant was the defendant while the respondents were the plaintiffs in the suit.2. The plaintiffs are brothers and the defendant is their sister. Plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 80 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Ramanathapuram for partition and separate possession of 3/4th share in the suit properties. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit properties were their ancestral properties and therefore, they are entitled to 15/16th share therein. Even otherwise, they would further contend that in case the suit properties are held to have belonged exclusively to their mother Kuppammal, even then, they are entitled to 3/4th share therein.3. Defendants, on the other hand, would deny the ancestral character of the suit properties, besides taking specific stand that they belonged exclusively to their mother Kuppammal, that there was a custom in the Idaya community, to which the parties belong that the male members of the family did n...
A.F.W. Low Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Mad)298; [1995]217ITR213(Mad)
Ratnam J.1. The assessee, an individual and resident, during the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, received dividend income from certain companies incorporated in the united Kingdom. In the original assessments, the actual amounts received by the assessee from the companies converted at the proper exchange rate into rupees were included. Later, the Income-tax Officer realised that what was included in the assessment was the net dividend income received by the assessee after deduction of income-tax and, as, according to hi, the gross dividend was includible under section 5(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), especially in view of the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1965, to the united Kingdom Income-tax Act, 1952, under which U. K. companies deducted tax on dividends and paid the amounts deducted to the Inland Revenue as an amount, apart from its own tax liability. Reassessments were made including the gross dividend income of Rs. 56...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.Ct.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)124CTR(Mad)290; [1995]217ITR95(Mad)
1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instant of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 21,000 being the deposit made by an intending buyer, forfeited and appropriated by the assessee, did not constitute income of the assessee and as such was not liable to be taxed?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company, engaged in trading, investment and money-lending business. It negotiated for the sale of its asset, viz., a house property, and as the sale transaction fell through, an amount of Rs. 21,000, deposited by an intending purchaser with the assessee, was forfeited by it. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee claimed that the amount forfeited cannot be treated as income liable to ...
N.K. Mehaet Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1994
Reported in: [1994]208ITR563(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal when the petition for injunction with the vacating injunction petition filed by the Department, came up for hearing. 2. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to forbear from proceeding with the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner in his letter No. Conf. 506A(2) of 1991 dated March 24, 1993, whereunder a charge-sheet framed against the petitioner for an alleged misconduct under section 288 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 60 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, has been forwarded to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit his explanation. Having regard to the nature and stage of the proceedings, I would consider it inappropriate even to advert to the details of the charge as contained in the charge memo. Suffice it to notice that annexure 'I' to the notice under challenge attributes the commission of grave misconduct to ...
N. Sivalingam and Another Vs. A.V. Chandraiyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas167(Mad)
Thangamani J.1. The respondent herein preferred a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881, against one Diwan Mohideen and the petitioners herein In C.C. No. 338 of 1990 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem, alleging that two post-dated cheques, one dated April 22, 1990, for Rs. 4,800 and the other dated April 28, 1990, for Rs. 5,000 were drawn by the present petitioners on the South Indian Bank Limited, Kanchipuram Branch, in favour of Diwan Mohideen. The latter discounted them with the respondent/complainant and received a sum of Rs. 9,214 after deducting all charges on March 12, 1990. When the complainant presented the cheques for payment, they were dishonored on September 21, 1990, with the endorsements 'refer to drawer' and 'exceeds arrangement' respectively. The statutory notice was issued on October 5, 1990, to the present petitioners and Diwan Mohideen by the complainant/respondent giving seven days time to make the payment. The above s...
Khathija Beevi Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: [1995]217ITR114(Mad)
Rangarajan, J.1. This petition is directed against the order of the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty refusing to rectify the assessment. The matter relates to the estate of the late Abdul Aziz. The accountable person claimed that a sum of Rs. 27,500 being a debt due by the deceased to one Natesa Padayachi was allowable as a deduction in computing the principal value of the estate. That question came up for consideration before this court in T.C.O.P. No. 173 of 1977. The court observed that learned counsel for the petition was not in a position to show that the sum was actually a debt due to Natesa Padayachi by the deceased. At the same time, this court observed : 'In case the suit is decreed as against the estate, then we consider that the assessee may approach the authority concerned so as to get a deduction in the manner contemplated by law.' 2. The suit was actually decreed on September 30, 1978. Thereupon, the assessee made an application on October 17, 1978, seeking deduction o...
Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: 1994(71)ELT653(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the preliminary order on the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, has filed this writ petition. 2. Brief facts are the following :- The petitioner is a manufacturer of sugar which is liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. As per Notification No. 4-C.E., dated 1-1-1972, the Government of India have granted concession in the matter of levy of excise duty to such quantities of sugar actually delivered to the Government for distribution at fair price to domestic consumers or for any other purpose for which the Central Government may decide in public interest to utilise the said sugar. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to avail that concessional rate of levy of excise on the sugar manufactured by it, the petitioner voluntarily placed certain quantity of sugar at the disposal of the Government and, thereafter during the period from February to June, 1972, cleared...
St. John's Teacher Trainging Institute for Women Vs. State of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ159
Swamidurai, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 776 of 1986 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram, is the appellant. The plaintiff is St John's Teacher Training Institute for Women represented by its correspondent S. Jayaraj. He filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff/school is a minority school and the order passed by the Educational Authorities on 10.12.1985 is not valid and for a direction to the defendants to allow the students to write the examinations. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated as follows: The plaintiff-institute was established by S. Jeyaraj on 27.9.1985 and he is a Christian by birth. There is no teacher training institute at Veeramanallur, Ambasamudram Taluk within the radius of 32 K.Ms. The women students have to go for a long distance from Ambasamudram in search of teacher training institute. The vocational course which was started in the Higher Secondary Schools is not sufficient to meet the needs of women students. So Jayaraj establis...
Registrar, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs. Suhura Beevi Educatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad42
ORDER1. These petitions coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition the orders of the Lower Courts below and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Chandru for Mr. R. Yashod Vardhan Advocate for the petitioner in the both petitions and of Mr. T. Theageswaran for M/s. Waraon & Sairams Advocate for the 1st respondents in both the petitions and of Mr. R. Swami-nathan Addl. Govt., pleader (CS) on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3 in CRP 2939/93 and 2nd respondent in CRP. 3292/93 court made the following order :--The above revisions involve similar and overlapping issues and, therefore, submissions have been made in common by thecounsel appearing on either side and are dealt with together.2. CRP No. 2939 of 1993 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22-9-1993 by which the court below (S. Thamizhvanan. III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) recorded the factum of an endorsement made by the pla...
Adair Dutt and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1994
Reported in: (1994)124CTR(Mad)1; [1994]210ITR1063(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Messrs. Adair Dutt and Company (India) Private Limited, Madras-2, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the respondent in AAMDS/No. 4(6) of 1989-90 dated June 22, 1989. The petitioner-company is a tenant in occupation of 400 sq. ft. in the ground floor of the premises bearing door Nos. 109 and 110, Anna Salai, Madras-2. On March 30, 1989, an agreement for sale for Rs. 26 lakhs in respect of the premises bearing door Nos. 109 and 110, Anna Salai, Madras-2, was entered into between its owners and another person, in and by which the owners had agreed to sell the intending purchaser had also agreed to buy the right, title and interest of the owners in the premises referred to earlier, free from all encumbrances and charges. This agreement along with a statement in Form No. 37-I prescribed under rule 48L of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »