Chennai Court October 1997 Judgments
The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Swamin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ459
ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The matter arises under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Land Acquisition Officercum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, is the revision petitioner. Both the revisions have been filed against the orders of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in I.A. Nos. 219 and 231 of 1992 in L.A.O. No. 46 of 1988. Those two applications were filed by the respondents/claimants under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the respondents have prayed for the grant of leave to amend the judgment and decree in respect of interest at the rate of 15% instead of at 9% based under Section 28 of the Act, which provides for interest on solatium, and to grant leave to amend the judgment and decree in respect of the increased amount under Section 23(l-A) of the Act and interest thereon under Section 28 of the Act. The trial court allowed both the applications against which the present revisions have been filed by the State.2. T...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Muthammal Vs. Gurunathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ419
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. By consent of both the counsel, the civil revision petition itself is taken up for final disposal.2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 502 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, has filed the said suit for partition of her 1/10th share in the suit properties. The suit has been dismissed on 20.9.1990 for non-payment of batta. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner herein has filed I.A. No. 86 of 1995 for condoning the delay of 982 days in filing the petition for restoration of the suit stating that the suit was pending at Melur and she engaged the counsel at Madurai and the counsel has failed to take care of the matter. Therefore, she came to know about the same and the counsel at Madurai entrusted the matter to the local counsel. Now the jurisdiction lies within the District Munsif Court.3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that even though enough opportunities have been given for the plaintiff to pay the batta, still the batta has n...
Tag this Judgment!G. Subburaj and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR350(Mad)
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. Desirable it is, to pen down a common order in all these actions, inasmuch as the point involved for consideration is one and the same. One G. Subburaj and one Sasikala, it is said, are spouses. Their son is one minor Tamil Selvan. The said G. Subburaj, it appears owns individual property in his name comprising an extent of 12.89 plus 1.13 acres, totalling to 14.02 acres. This apart he appears to have purchased an extent of 62.50 acres in his name in Court auction proceedings. Thus, in all, he acquired by way of purchase in Court auction or otherwise to a total extent of 76.52 acres. On 5th October, 1979 a registered document styled as family arrangement came into existence in and by which allotment of landed properties was made among the spouses and their son. 21 acres were allotted to each of the spouses apart from allotting 21.68 acres to their minor son. 2. The Agrl. ITO, Dindigual, it appears, recognising the said document, styled as family arrangement as a ...
Tag this Judgment!Paranjothi Shanmugham and Another Vs. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR592(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan J. 1. Writ Petition No. 16771 of 1993 is filed by one Paranjothi Shanmugham praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent, the Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam, to hand over the document No. 151 duly registered. 2. Writ Petition No. 16772 of 1993 has been filed by one Shanmugham against the very same respondents praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent, Sub-Registrar, Virugambakkam, to hand over the document No. 150 duly registered. 3. Heard Mr. S. Sampathkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mrs. T. Kokilavani, learned Government Advocate and Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. On both the writ petitions identical questions have been raised. 4. The first respondent is the owner of a large extent of land comprised in S. No. 77 of Valasaravakkam Village, who exec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prithivi Fire Works Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR230(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has stated the case and referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1981-82 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transactions, of borrowing and repayment with interest thereon amounting to Rs. 1,84,945 were in the nature of promissory notes and not hundi and that therefore the sum of Rs. 1,84,945 should not be taxed as income under section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1981-82 ?' 2. The assessee is, a partnership firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of fire works. For the assessment year 1981-82 the Income-tax Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,84,945 under the head 'Other sources' on account of hundi borrowings from five parties by invoking the provisions of se...
Tag this Judgment!Adwise Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1997
Reported in: 1998(97)ELT35(Mad); 2006[2]STR239; [2007]6STT348
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of declaration by declaring the impugned letter M.F. (D.R.) Letter No. 341/43/96-TRU, dated 31-10-1996 as ultra vires the provisions of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and Sections 6(d)7 and 95 of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended); and pass such further or other orders in the interest of justice.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which is sworn to by the Managing Director of the petitioner Company it is stated that it is an advertising agency and provides services connected with the preparation, display and or exhibition or advertisements in newspapers, magazines, journals as well as on radio and television and the petitioner charges its clients for services in the preparation of advertisements.3. As per the Finance Act, 1994, Chapter V, levying of service tax was introduced. Initially, it was imposed on telephone services. By amendments made in 1996, the levy of service tax was...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Ramajayam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1997
Reported in: (2004)186CTR(Mad)477
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal, Madras at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts arid in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the agreement between the assessee and M/s Bata India Ltd. was not a mere contract of employment or a contract of service simpliciter but was a contract also for service and while the fixed salary was referable to the assessee's role as an employee, the commission and profits on repair and pedicure section contemplated in the agreement did not fall to be charged under the head 'salaries' but under the head 'Income from other sources' and therefore, the claim of the assessee for deduction of a sum of Rs. 11,450 being expenses incurred against the commission receipts from M/s Bata India Ltd. was allowable ?'2. The assessee was engaged by M/s Bata India Ltd. under an agreement dt. 21st Dec., 1978, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Mary John and anr. Vs. Ratnabai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ617
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The second appeal has been preferred by the defendants while the plaintiffs have preferred the cross objections.2. The suit is for partition of the plaintiffs' half share in items 1 and 2 and a half share in the B schedule after setting aside the gift deed and sale deed dated 14.1.1974 and 24.1.1974 respectively. There is also a prayer for redemption of the half share of the plaintiffs in the B schedule.3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the properties in the A schedule belonged in Devasahayam, the grandfather of the plaintiffs and the father of the first defendant. The B schedule property belonged to Arputham alias Muthammal, the grandmother of the plaintiffs and the mother of the first defendant. The grand-mother Arputham died before the grandfather, Mariadasan, the father of the plaintiffs predeceased his mother Arputham. According to them, the documents have come into existence i.e., one gift deed dated 14.1.1974 and the sale deed dated 26.1.1974. These do...
Tag this Judgment!Amirthakumar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ240
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to A1 11467/93, dated 6.2.1997 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential order in G.O.Ms.No. 128, Highways Department, dated 28.4.1997 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same and forbear the respondents from taking any further proceedings in pursuance of the said notification.2. Heard Mr. Peppin Fernando learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. T. Kokilavani learned Government Advocate for the respondents. There is no dispute that the land has been acquired for public purpose. The contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are:(i) the acquisition is vitiated as no notice under Sections 4(1) and 5-A read with the rules framed under the Act had been served and(ii) the decision to acquire the petitioner's land is neither warranted nor justified as vacant land is available on the opposite side for extending the road and for r...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Badami Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Mad)289; [1999]240ITR263(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.1. This is a combined reference both at the instance of the assessee and at the instance of the Revenue. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for our opinion for the assessment year 1977-78. 2. Question of law at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 52,200 received by the applicant as payment under the 'voluntary separation programme' from I.B.M. World Trade Corporation was liable to be included in the applicant's total income for the assessment year 1977-78 ?' 3. Question of law at the instance of the Revenue 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 23,990 the amount received in lieu of vacation at the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »