Chennai Court November 1997 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.
Venkatachalam Vs. Anandha Jothi @ Rasathi and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC763; I(1998)DMC454
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This is a petition praying to set aside the order dated 18.6.1997 made in M.P. No. - of 1997 in M.C. No. 10 of 1996 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sankari.2. The petitioner is the husband. The first respondent is the wife. The second and third respondents are the children. The respondents in the year 1996 filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.3. On receipt of summons, the petitioner, the husband filed a counter before the lower Court admitting the marriage between himself and the first respondent and denying the paternity of the children, the respondents 2 and 3 herein through him. The said counter was filed in February, 1997.4. On the eve of the commencement of the proceeding, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125(2), Cr.P.C. in April, 1997 before the lower Court with the prayer to direct the first respondent to take the respondents 2 and 3 to Madras and produce them before the ...
T.S. Sethuraman Vs. J. Nagalakshmi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC339; (1998)IIMLJ547
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The tenant who suffered order of eviction before the authorities below has filed the C.R.P.No.563 of 1997.2. The landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 479 of 1992 on the file of the learned Rent Controller /XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act 18 of 1960. According to the landlady she had leased out the ground floor bearing Door No. 66 Scheme Road, Kamdar Nagar, Madras-34 to the respondent/tenant, except in room both attached on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,600. According to the landlady the tenant has not paid the rent from July 1991. In para 5 of the petition, the landlady has stated that since her husband had fallen down and had a fracture in his hip, and he was in the hospital for treatment, he requires periodical checkup in the hospital, and so the petitioner wants to settle at Madras. For that purpose, the above eviction petition was filed. The tenant contested the said petition by filing a counter wherein he has sta...
V. Ramu Asari Vs. the Government of India Represented by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ656
Raju, J.1. The writ petitioner has sought for the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant Freedom Fighter's Pension to the petitioner from 1972 with interest, cost and adequate damages and fair compensation.2. The ground on which the freedom fighter's pension under the Central Government Scheme has been denied to the petitioner is that the petitioner has not shown to have undergone the required period of imprisonment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was convicted on more than one court and sentences were imposed on such offences under more than one count, but to run concurrently and therefore, the period of different sentences for different offences have to be clubbed together to compute the required and eligible period of imprisonment for granting pension. We are afraid we can countenance such a claim. The fact that the sentence have been ordered to run concurrently would mean that only the sentence actually undergone und...
Carborandum Universal Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)104
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. This is a combined reference for the asst. yr. 1974-75 both at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the Revenue. The Tribunal at the instance of both the assessee and the Revenue has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the asst. yr. 1974-75. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of the surtax payable for the year in computing its total income for the asst. yr. 1974-75.2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the. Tribunal was right in holding that the gratuity fund has already been approved and accordingly directing the ITO to allow it if the other conditions under s. 40A(7) are satisfied for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?2. In so far as the first question of law referred to at the instance ...
Mohandass Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3409
1. Heard both the parties. 2. The above revision is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 9-2-95 in C.A. No. 87 of 1994 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagai Quaid-e-Milleth District Nagapattinam, confirming the order and sentence of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur dated 5-3-94 in C.C. No. 2451 of 1990 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 & 477-A, I.P.C. 3. The petitioner was facing a trial in C.C. No. 2451 of 1990 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 & 477-A, I.P.C. with regard to alleged offences, namely, forgery, breach of trust, falsification of accounts and misappropriation of funds of the account holders PW 5 and PW 7, when the petitioner was working as Branch Post Master at Tiruvarur Village during the period 25-11-85 and 6-11-86. 4. Twelve witnesses were examined as PW 1 to PW 12 and fifty five documents were marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P55 on b...
Balasubramania Foundry Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR523(Mad)
1. At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our opinion under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : 'Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that in view of the provisions of section 40A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the applicant is not entitled to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 3,14,614 being the gratuity liability that has arisen under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ?' 2. The assessee is a registered firm and during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee had claimed deduction of the gratuity of a sum of Rs. 3,14,614 which included actual payment as well as the provision made towards the gratuity. The Income-tax Officer in the order of assessment passed for the assessment year 1975-76 allowed the deduction for the gratuity actually paid but disallowed the sum of Rs. 2,98,433 as it was not an actual payment to the employee,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Yenpeyes Rubber (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR734(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following common question of law for the asst. yrs. 1979-80 and 1980-81 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the deduction under s. 80HH has to be computed by taking a proportion of a gross profit from the new industrial undertaking in the backward area and should be given as a deduction from such gross income of the assessee similar to the deductions under other sections viz., 30 to 43A in computing the income from business under s. 29 of the IT Act ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial belts. The assessee, admittedly, is a newly established industrial undertaking set up in a backward area. The assessee, in the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1979-80 disclosed the income from the business of manufa...
V.T. Venkateswaran Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR534(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for our consideration under s. 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in deducting the liability to wealth-tax for the asst. yr. 1973-74 as a debt owed on the valuation dt. 31st December, 1973, the amount deductible is the tax estimated on the returned wealth or the amount assessed on the net wealth determined by the WTO ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and in the wealth-tax proceedings for the asst. yr. 1973-74, the assessee claimed that the income-tax and wealth-tax should be deducted as debt owed by the assessee on the valuation date. The assessee had claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 39,979 being the estimated wealth-tax liability for the asst. yr. 1973-74 as on the valuation dt. 31st December, 1972. The WTO allowed the deduction of Rs. 64,400 as wealth-tax liability based on the assessed net wealth for the asst. yr. 1973-74. The WTO, how...
B. Padmavathi Vs. Chinnammal and 2 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC577
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a petition in I.P.No. 19 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Udumalpet, to adjudicate the 3rd respondent as insolvent. According to them, the 3rd respondent herein has executed a promissory note on 22.3.81 in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 14,000 and a notice was issued on 26.9.81 demanding the 3rd respondent to pay the said amount. On 15.7.83 the 3rd respondent herein has executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant herein. According to the respondents 1 and 2, such an alienation was only with a view to defraud the creditor with fraudulent intention and saving the property for himself without meeting the obligations to the creditors. On that basis, they have stated that the 3rd respondent herein had committed an act of insolvency.2. The appellant herein filed a counter objecting to the averments in the petition stating that the property originally was settled in favour of the minor children under Ex. B1 date...
V.T. Venkateswaran Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1997
Reported in: (1999)156CTR(Mad)342
N.Y. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.The following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal for our consideration under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in deducting the liability to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1973-74 as a debt owed on the valuation dt. 31st Dec., 1973, the amount deductible is the tax estimated on the returned wealth or the amount assessed on the net wealth determined by theWealth Tax Officer ?'2. The assessee is an individual and in the wealth-tax proceedings for the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee claimed that the income-tax and wealth-tax should be deducted as debt owed by the assessee on the valuation date. The assessee had claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 39,979 being the estimated wealth-tax liability for the assessment year 1973-74 as on the valuation dt. 31st Dec., 1972. The Wealth Tax Officer allowed the deduction of Rs. 64,400 as wealth-tax liability based on the assessed net...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »