Chennai Court March 1994 Judgments
Vijayalakshmi Gopalan Vs. the Executive Engineer and Administrative Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ389
ORDERS.M. Ali Mohamed, J.1. The petitioner herein, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has averred that the Flat No. 6 Lloyds Estate was initially allotted to her husband late Mr. Gopal on 21.9.1965 and continued in his name until his death on 19.2.1972. On 25.8.1972,sheapplied to the second respondent seeking the transfer of the premises in her name. Subsequently the premises with all the assets and liabilities was transferred to her name on 24.11.1972. She was in enjoyment of the said premises without any obstruction. She submits that the first respondent issued communication to the effect that the flat, allotted to her, had been sublet and that the said subletting was illegal. In the communication, she was requested to tender an affidavit that she was in lawful possession of the said flat without subletting, within 15.9.1981. She replied that there was no necessity for filing a fresh affidavit as she had already executed an affidavit stating that she was in lawful...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Rowther Vs. S.S. Rajalinga Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ509
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is the petitioner is this civil revision petition against the concurrent eviction order passed, one by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 1 of 1993 and another by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 21 of 1989.2. The Rent Controller passed the eviction order on three different grounds, viz., (1) wilful default for a period of 11 months from September, 1988 in the payment of monthly rents.(under Section 1O(2)(i) of the Act, (2) the respondents landlords bona fide require the petition building for demolition and reconstruction (under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, and (3) denial of title of the landlords with reference to the superstructure on the petition-site. (No doubt in the R.C.O.P. the respondents landlords have not specifically raised this ground of denial of title, but as against the plea of the landlords that both the site and superstructure...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Commerce and Industries Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR533(Mad)
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in accordance with the direction of this court referring the following three questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in its conclusion that a sum of Rs. 39,000 cannot be allowed as a business loss 2. Whether the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the investment in the shares in question for the purpose of acquiring more business is justified in rejecting the claim that the amount in question cannot be allowed as a deduction in business loss 3. Whether the conclusion of the Tribunal that the sum of Rs. 39,000 is not a business loss, is a fair and reasonable view to take in the matter ?' 2. The assessee is a company carrying on business in structural engineering and was, at the relevant time, having business relations with Kothari Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. In the year 1961, the assessee acquired ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sundararajan Vs. Appropriate Authority and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR266(Mad)
K.A. Swami C.J.1. This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated January 5, 1994, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 15039 of 1988 (see page 267 supra). The learned single judge has held that the clarificatory observation made by the Supreme Court in C. B. Gautam v. Union of India : [1993]199ITR530(SC) would appeal the case and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the application of the ratio of that decision to his case and has accordingly dismissed the writ petition. 2. The relevant facts in this case are as follows : 3. There was an agreement of sale entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of the immovable property in question on August 25, 1988, under which the third respondent agreed to sell the immovable property in question to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 19,00,000 and out of that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid by the petitioner to the third respondent a an advance, Pursuant to the agreement, the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Govindaraja Naicker and ors. Vs. Ramanuja Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ151
ORDERThangamani, J.1. Petitioners are defendants in O.S. No. 471 of 1991 in the Court of the District Munsif, Chingleput. Respondent/plaintiff filed that suit for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners from disturbing his peaceful enjoyment of the said properties. Along with the suit he filed I.A. No. 1878 of 1991 for permanent injunction. The revision petitioners resisted that application contending that plaintiff having filed an earlier suit O.S. No. 91 of 1984 against them for the same relief in respect of the same property and the suit having been dismissed as not pressed and having been with drawn with a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action cannot maintain the present suit and no injunction could be granted therein. In another suit O.S. No. 251 of 1969 filed by him also he could not get any relief even though he pursued the case up to the High Court. And this is a third attempt to grab t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Ponnuswamy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR185(Mad)
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Department for answering the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 37,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1970-71 was not valid ?' 2. It appears that the year 1970-71 was the first assessment year in relation to the respondent-assessee. It appears that he had not filed the return but, since he was a dealer in cement and fertilizer and also a moneylender notice under section 148 of the Act was issued pursuant to which he filed his return showing an income of Rs. 384 only. During the enquiry, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee has advanced Rs. 37,000 on two occasions to one N. Doraisamy Reddiar and interest of Rs. 6,300 was also shown credited in the account of the said Reddiar. When this was put to the assesse...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Hanifa Vs. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR589(Mad)
1. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought quashing of the order dated April 25, 1979, in No. FPA 49 of 1978-79 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited property and also the order dated June 30, 1976, in No. OCA/(MDS)/287 of 1976 passed by the competent authority for the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act. 2. According to the competent authority, the petitioner was a detenu and has suffered an order of detention, therefore, he is covered by the provisions of section 2(2)(b) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'SAFEMA'), that he had acquired agricultural land in June, 1974, for a total consideration of Rs. 12,861, that he is not able to establish that the entire consideration was paid from lawful sources and that he has failed to satisfy that consideration to the extent of Rs. 7,861 was from lawful sources. The competent authori...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanlal Vs. Karthikeyan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: 1994CriLJ3720
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Case is by P.W. 1 in the case. The three accused have been acquitted of the charges framed against them in C.C. No. 163 of 1984. The State has not filed any appeal. 2. It is the prosecution case that the land known as Paracheri Thattu Vilai in Survey No. 262/2 of Mukilanvalai belonged to P.W. 3 Rathina Thangam and he has been in possession of it. When P.W. 1 Ramanlal son of P.W. 3 went to that field on 23-9-1983 at 2.30 p.m., the three accused and 25 others were cutting down a palmirah tree there. When P.W. 1 questioned the accused about it the first accused retorted asking back who was he to question. Immediately the first accused with a Vettukathi aimed a cut at P.W. 1. P.W. 1 prevented the aim with his left hand and he sustained bleeding injury below his ankle. The second accused fisted P.W. 1 at his chest on account of which he had pain. Third accused with his right hand beat P.W. 1 at his right shoulder. This also caused pain. At the time of incident...
Tag this Judgment!C.T. Laxmandas Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: [1994]208ITR859(Mad)
Raju, J. 1. By consent of parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first and second respondents in AE(V) CBE/OC 27 of 1992-93 dated January 12, 1993, whereunder the second respondent has called upon the petitioner to produced materials relating to the cost of construction of the property in question to enable him to inspect and submit a valuation report of the property to the first respondent, as requested by the said officer. 3. The petitioner states in the affidavit that during the assessment year 1986-87, having corresponding accounting year ending with March 31, 1986, whereunder the second respondent has called upon the petitioner to produce materials relating to the cost of construction of the property in question to enable him to inspect and submit a valuation report of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Best and Company (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: [1995]213ITR164(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. At the instance of the Department, in accordance with the directions given by this court, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Tribunal referred the following questions for our opinion : 1967-68 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of computing the profits of the priority industry under section 80E of the Act, both the bonus and the commission paid to the directors of the assess-company should not be excluded ?' 1968-79 and 1969-70 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of computing the profits of the priority industry under section 80-I of the Act both the bonus and the commission paid to the directors of the assessee-company should not be excluded ?' 2. The reference applications relate to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1969-70....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »