Chennai Court October 1997 Judgments
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Gillanders Arbutnot and Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC493(Mad)
ORDERJanarathanam, J.1. This revision, at the instance of the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 10th day of January, 1989 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras-104 (for short 'the Tribunal') and made in T.A. No. 234 of 1986 relatable to the assessment year 1979-80.2. The assessee-dealers--Gillanders Arbutnot & Co., Ltd., 30, Rajaji Salai, Madras-1, are registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 1 of 1959 for short 'TNGST Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 74 of 1956--for short 'CST Act') as well. They have been assessed to tax under CST Act by the assessing officer for the said assessment year, by order dated February 20, 1985. The order so passed was served upon the assessee-dealers on March 12, 1985.3. Under Section 31-A of TNGST Act, as is stood then, an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner has to be filed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of service of the orde...
Tag this Judgment!A. Philomen Rasu Vs. S. Kunna Kavandar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC47
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful defendant, who succeeded before the trial Court but lost before the lower appellate Court.2. The plaintiff/respondent filed the suit for bare injuction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property measuring an extent of 1.96 acres, classified as dry land in S.No. 113/4 in Pillur Village, Trichi District. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased the suit property under Ex.A.I dated 20.9.1973 and on the very same day possession was given to him and has been paying kist under Exs.A-3 and A-4 and also got patta under Ex.A-2. Since the defendant is demanding reconveyance, he has filed the suit.3. The defence was that the plaintiff is a money lender. When the defendant approached for a loan he agreed to it provided a sale deed is executed in his favour. Accordingly, he purchased the stamp papers and got the sale deed executed, but the agreement was...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal (Died) and ors. Vs. J. Victor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ740
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Defendants 1 to 7 in O.S. No. 7368 of 1978 on the file of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras are the appellants in the above appeal. The first respondent herein filed the said suit for specific performance.2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated here under.The plaintiff and one Narayanaswami Pillai entered into an agreement of sale dated 21.7.1973 under which Narayanaswami Pillai agreed to sell the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs. 37,000 free from all encumbrances According to the terms of the agreement, Narayanaswami Pillai should discharge a subsisting mortgage in respect of this property, pay the arrears of taxe6, obtain an encumbrance certificate and convey the property free from all encumbrances. Subsequently on 11.10.1975 Narayanaswami Pillai received a sum of Rs. 13,500 representing that he would discharge the two mortgages in respect of the property and another in respect of another property of Narayanaswami Pillai due to the s...
Tag this Judgment!Thirumuruga Kirupnanda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara Swamigal Medical Edu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ669
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the respondent dated 17.7.1997 in L.No.A.I.(G.J.)/95-97/1273, and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to grant affiliation to the petitioners Arts and Science College at Salem, from the academic year 1996-97, based on the Inspection Commission Report and recommendations rendered in December, 1996 and January, 1997, already available with the University, and consequently permit the students who were admitted during the academic year 1996-97 to pursue their courses of study to which they were admitted and allow them to take up necessary examinations and confer all recognitions and degrees.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, sworn by the Vice Chairman of the petitioner Trust, it is stated that the trust has established various educational institutio...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. M. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: [2003]133STC513(Mad)
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. This revision at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the order dated December 14, 1988 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madras-20, for short, 'the Tribunal' and made in T.A. No. 283 of 1987 relatable to the assessment year 1984-85. The assessee, Thiru M. Natarajan, 86-A, Gandhi Nagar, Kovilpatti is a dealer in Yavesh Match Works registered under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It appears the assessee-dealer, though effected inter-State sales, did not, however file monthly return showing the inter-State sales of matches effected. An inspection was carried out at the premises of the assessee-dealer by the Enforcement Wing and during the course of inspection, it appears that the assessee-dealer effected inter-State sales between the period April 1, 1984 and October 31, 1984 to the tune of Rs. 96,000. The assessee-dealer, it appears prior to the issuance of pre-assessment notice...
Tag this Judgment!ismail Vs. State by Si of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC714
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The above revision is directed against the order dated 21.11.94 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirkazhukunram, Chingleput, made in Crl.M.P.No. 2717 of 1994 under Section 32, I.P.C. for reopening the case and examining the witnesses on behalf of the petitioner herein.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, being a victim, filed a complaint in C.C.No.114 of 1991 and therefore filed the above Crl.M.P.No. 2717 of 1997 seeking permission to reopen the case and to examine the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. He challenges the finding of the learned Magistrate that the Assistant Public Prosecutor alone is entitled to represent the case as erroneous and will land in miscarriage of justice.3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the state contends in support of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate that the prayer in the Crl.M.P.No. 2717 of 1994 is not maintainable in law and the same is ...
Tag this Judgment!D. Annalakshmi Ammal (Since Deceased) and ors. Vs. State of Madras Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC593
ORDERK. Sampath, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the issue of notification under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 14-8-1986 issued by the second respondent and to quash the proposed acquisition commencing from issue of 4(1) Notification and ending with Sections 9(3) and 10 notice of the Act in respect of R.S.No. 3918/7 newly sub-divided as R.S.NO. 3918/16 on Chamiers Road, Madras-28, alleging as follows:The first writ petitioner, since deceased, was the owner of the land and building old No. 42, new No. 77 on Chamiers Road, Madras- 28. She received a notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of an extent of 1237 sq. ft. near the built area of her bungalow. There was not enquiry under Section 5-A. Her husband late Doraiswamy Nadar came to know that Section 4(1) Notification had been issued for the purpose of widening the road and fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. C.R. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR123(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a combined reference both under IT Act and WT Act by the Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue. In so far as the reference under IT Act is concerned, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the trust income should not be included in the income-tax assessment of the assessee-minor for the asst. yr. 1977-78 ?' In so far as the reference under WT Act is concerned, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law under s. 27(1) of the WT Act : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the wealth of Venkatesh Trust of Rs. 30,495 from the total wealth of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1977-78 ?' Since it is a combined reference and the facts are common, we propose to deal with both the cases in common. 2. One R. V. Bhuvanesh, the settlo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.K. Kannan Marriage Benefit Trust and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR785(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has stated the consolidated statement of the case in respect of four assessees under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and referred the following common questions of law for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that because the beneficiary was non-existent at the time of the execution of the trust deed, it could not be said that the beneficiary was known and that the provisions of section 164(1) would not therefore be applicable ?' 2. The four assessees who are the respondents in the tax cases are four trusts. Of the four trusts two trusts were created for the benefit of the would be son-...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Puthakalayam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR599(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has stated a case and referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the firm was entitled to registration under section 185(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a firm engaged in the business of publication of books. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1977-78. The assessee-firm was originally constituted with two partners, viz., Chockalingam and Muthiah. On April 1, 1976, there was a change in the constitution of the firm and one Kumari M. Meenakshi was taken into the business as a partner. One minor by name, Selvi M. Visalakshi, daughter of Muthiah, was admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In sub-paragraph 3 of the partnership deed, it is clearly stated that the adult members would be the partn...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »