Chennai Court April 1994 Judgments
Xavier Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1994
Reported in: I(1995)ACC175; 1995ACJ7; AIR1994Mad306
ORDER1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for the death of his son.2. The petitioner's only son by name Yesudas, who was blind by birth, was studying 6th standard at St. Louis Institute for the deaf and blind situated at Canal Bank Road, Adyar, Madras. On 10-10-1992, it seems at about 9.30p.m. the petitioner's son had a dinner at a nearby hotel with the petitioner herein, and they were walking in the footpath at Cathedral Road, as used by the petitioner, in week ends. There was light drizzling and the ground was wet. When the petitioner's son was passing by an electric pole which was not maintained properly, he was pulled into the electric field and fell down on the footpath and in the impact his left hand hit the open junction box touching an unprotected live wire and he was electrocuted instantly. Thisfact was brought to the notice of the Head Mistress of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N.M. Parthasarathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1994
Reported in: (1995)125CTR(Mad)174; [1995]212ITR105(Mad)
Janarthanam, J.1. In this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the I. T. Act'), at the instance of instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-II, Madras, the following questions of law had been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the redemption fine of Rs. 84,000 levied on the assessee by the customs authorities for importing goods without a valid licence is an admissible deduction (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that the redemption fine levied by the customs authorities is an additional duty and it was not infraction of law is sustainable in law (3) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not rendering a decision on the question of allowability of legal expenses for conducing the cases before the customs authorities against the levy of redemption of fine (4) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lucas Indian Services Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR382(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 Revenue requesting decision of this court on the following questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reserve for bad and doubtful debts should be treated as reserve and should be included in the capital for the levy of surtax 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right and justified in applying the provisions of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, consequent to the deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the dividends declared from the general reserve should not be deducted from the general reserve for computing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR443(Mad)
Gulab C. Gupta, J.1. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, requesting decision of this court on the following two questions of law : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the royalty payments made to the foreign collaborator are deductible in full as revenue expenditure 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Kottayam unit of the assessee was a new industrial undertaking entitled to deduction under section 80J ?' 3. The respondent-company manufactures automobile tyres and tubes and earns income by selling the same. The assessee had, for the purpose of this business, a collaboration agreement with Messrs. Mansfield Tyre and Rubber Company, U. S. A., under which it paid technical fees to the collaborators and claimed the full amount as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer disallowed twenty-five per cent. of the technical fees a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR550(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal to this court, for its decision : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that registration of conveyance deed, transferring certain buildings, plant and machinery by the Government to the assessee is not required and depreciation claimed should be granted and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the income from letting out the Service Corporation, Guindy, should be assessed as income from property and that the assessee is entitled to the allowance at 1/6th of the annual letting value towards repairs especially when the assessee is not the owner of the building transferred by the Government ?' 2. It is fairly stated by learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that the decision in CIT v. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. V.T. Venkateswaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1994
Reported in: [1995]212ITR289(Mad)
Gulab C. Gupta, J. 1. This is a reference under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act', for short), requesting this court to decide the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the benefit of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has to be granted to the assessee for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The respondent/assessee alongwith his two brothers and father jointly enjoyed the house property bearing No. 14, Sterling Road, Madras, and claimed exemption under section 5(i)(iv) of the Act. It appears that one of his brothers also claimed this exemption; which was allowed to him in the original assessment. The said assessment was, however, reopened and the exemption granted was withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who held that each of the three brothers was entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Palyam Paruthi Panchu Sangam and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1996Mad29
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners are dealers engaged in purchase and sale of various agricultural produces and they challenge the various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987, and certain rules in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1991 which have been brought into force with effect from 1st February, 1991. Inasmuch as the points raised and claims made in all the above writ petitions are similar, all the writ petitions were heard together and they are disposed of by this common order.2. Marketing legislation in the State of Tamil Nadu was the subject matter of several reports of Expert Committee appointed by the Government and the Expert Committee after careful examination found that the agricultural producers were largely illiterate and economically weak and were not having the facilities to dispose of their produce to their best advantage without being exploited by middleme...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Sundaram and Another Vs. Madurai Solaibadra Iyer and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad125
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.A. No. 761 of 1983 in E.P. No. 199 of 1978 in O.S. No. 48 of 1973 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Madurai.2. Short facts are : The petitioners who are defendants 3 and 4 in the suit had filed E.A. 761 of 1983 under Sections 47 and Order 21 Rules 66 and 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside the court auction sale held on 10-9-1979 on the following grounds : The property belongs to joint family of the petitioners and their mother deceased, first defendant. The deceased first defendant was an illiterate lady and she was living in the property along with respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners used to come to Madurai to see their mother occasionally. The first petitioner was in Tea Board Service and was serving in the northern towns of India for more than two decades. The second petitioner was at Madras for more than two decades. The second respondent and her major sons started a transport ...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Swamy Vs. V. Kunjithapadam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ536
Thanikkachalam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed a petition for eviction under Sections 1O(2)(1)and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') The respondent herein is the owner of the premises bearing door No. 227, Awai Shanmugham Road, Madras. The petitioner herein is the tenant in occupation of the ground floor portion of the said premises including one car shed on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 which was increased to Rs. 2,260 per month under an order passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 4216 of 1984 dated 12.9.1988. According to the landlord the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent at the admitted rate of Rs. 1,000 per month from 1.7.1988 to the end of August, 1989. According to the landlord the tenant also committed wilful default in payment of rent i.e. the difference between the agreed rent and the fair rent fixed by the Rent Con...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ravi Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ295
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. No. 10493 of 1987 and W.P. No. 1191 is an association whose members are the owners of houses in Manohar Avenue, Egmore, Madras. W.P. No. 10493 of 1987 is filed for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash G.O.Ms. No. 1119, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 30.7.1987. W.P. No. 1191 of 1988 is filed by the petitioner-association for the issue of writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Madras in its proceedings Permit No. B/4005/319 A & B/87, dated 6.10.1987. Since the respondents in W.P. No. 10493 of 1987 and W.P. No. 1191 of 1988 took an objection that W.P. Nos. 10493 of 1987 and 1191 of 1988 filed by the association are not maintainable, the residents of Manohar Avenue Egmore, Madras-8 who are the members of the association petitioner in W.P.Nos. 10493 of 1987 and 1191 of 1988 have filed W.P. Nos. 1580 to 1582 of 1991. In W.P. No. 1580 of 1991 the petitioners have prayed for the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »