Chennai Court December 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.
Minor Palaiammal Rep. by His Mother and Natural Guardian Management Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC244
ORDER1. By consent of both the counsel, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for final disposal, since notice of motion was ordered.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.595 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai. The said suit was dismissed for default on 6.6.1995. The petitioner filed an application, I.A.No. 891 of 1995 for condoning the delay of 15 days in filing the application for restoration of the suit. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. As against the said order, the present revision has been filed.3. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not attend the Court on the date of the hearing. Further she was admitted in the Hospital for heart- attack and she was treated as an in-patient for twenty days and the Doctor has advised her complete bed rest for another twenty days and hence she could not meet her counsel and after she recovered from the ill-ness, she filed the application...
Cheran Group of Companies Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: [1999]97CompCas478(Mad)
P. D. Dinakaran, J.1. Heard all the parties.2. The writ petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus for bearing the respondents from interfering with the rehabilitation scheme and with the restarting of the third respondent mill by way of interim working without prior sanctions from the second respondent herein as envisaged under 19A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and consequently to direct the respondents to proceed as per the directions of the second respondent in so far as it relates to the rehabilitation and re-starting/continuing operations of the third respondent mill.3. The petitioner contends that : 4. Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu, the third respondent herein, is a composite textile mill located at Tiruppur and was incorporated in April, 1932, as a spinning mill. It started commercial production in May, 1932.5. Thereafter, a separate weaving unit called 'B' Mill was started in 1960, and the earlier spinning unit came ...
New Ambadi Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: [2002]256ITR778(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This Tax Case Revision is filed against the order of the Commr. of Agrl. IT dt. 12th January, 1990 passed in SRMP No. 4 of 1988. The assessment year involved is 1984-85. The Commr. of Agrl. IT disallowed the commission paid to the managing director of the company and other directors on the ground that the directors including the managing director were the shareholders and they are entitled to share equally the profit and loss. In this view of the matter, the CIT held that the commission paid to the directors cannot be allowed as a deduction in the computation of agricultural income of the assessee. It is against this order of the Commr. of Agrl. IT, the present revision petition has been filed. 2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the assessee that the commission paid to the managing director and other directors for the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82 were disallowed and for the earlier asst. yr. 1983-84 also, this Court in Tax Case (R) No. 938 of 1987 b...
Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR416(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The following three questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, for our consideration : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reimbursement by the applicant of the medical expenses incurred by its managing director and also treating cash payment like house rent allowance paid to the managing director as part of salary/perquisite for the purpose of dis-allowance under section 40(c)(ii) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal was right in treating cash payments like house rent allowance paid to an executive as salary for the purpose of computing admissible perquisites for applying stipulated ceiling as per the provisions of section 40A(5) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surtax payable is not a...
S.D. Inderchand Vs. Baghavandass Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC516; (1998)IMLJ635
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.2. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 27,959-47 towards principal and interest due on a hand-loan by a receipt dated 29.1.1970.3. The plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that on 28-1- 1979 the defendant telephoned to him and requested him for a hand-loan of Rs. 20,000 and the amount should be sent through his clerk Subramanian next day on 29.1.1979. The defendant sent a letter though his clear Subramanian requesting the first plaintiff to send Rs. 15,000. Subramanian informed the first plaintiff that the defendant wanted to send whatever amount was available. After taking an acknowledgment from Subramanian, the plaintiff sent Rs. 19,588 to the defendant. As the transaction was a commercial one, the plaintiff claimed interest at 15% per annum. Since the money was paid by the second plaintiff, the wife of the first plaintiff, she has filed the suit along with her husband.4. The defendant contended that ther...
Mohammed Arif and ors. Vs. K.P.R. Jafarullah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ399
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The tenants who suffered order of eviction before the authorities below have filed the above revisions.2. The landlords are the owners of the shops of the premises in which the petitioners are the tenants. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 24 of 1982 for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(a) of the Act 18 of 1960. The said R.C.O.R. relates to shop Nos. 8A and 8B situate in Kamaraj Street, Sirkali Town. The respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 25 of 1982 to evict the tenant with respect to shop Nos. 8C and 8D under Sections 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(a) and 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The respondent also filed R.C.O.P. No. 26 of 1982 to evict the tenant with respect to shop Nos. 8E and 8F. of the said premises under Sections 10(2)(i) and (iii) and 14(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent has also filed R.C.O.P. No. 26' of 1984 against the tenant with respect to shop Nos. 8C and 8D of the said premises, under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller, Sirkali, accepti...
Nallaiah Vs. Panneer Selvan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ566
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The C.R.P. is against the order allowing the petition for condoning the delay of 394 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The reason stated in the affidavit in support of the petition is that there was a communal clash in the village with reference to the performing of the functions in the temple. Two communities clashed with each other and as a result law and order problem became serious and many families left the village. The petitioner states that he left the village and resided in another village Huppur along with his relative one Karuppaiah. He returned only after the normalcy was restored. As he was away from the village the postcard sent by the Advocate was not received. In the counter excepting the general denial, there is no specific denial with reference to the allegations contained in the affidavit. Only in the aforesaid circumstances the lower court allowed the petition for condoning the delay, After having agreed about t...
New Anbadi Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)320
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.This Tax Case Revision is filed against the order of the Commr. of Agrl. IT dt. 12th Jan., 1990 passed in SRMP No. 4 of 1988. The assessment year involved is 1984-85. The Commr, of Agrl. IT disallowed the commission paid to the managing director of the company and other directors on the ground that the directors including the managing director were the shareholders and they are entitled to share equally the profit and loss. In this view of the matter, the CIT held that the commission paid to the directors cannot be allowed as a deduction in the computation of agricultural income of the assessee. It is against this order of the Commr. of Agrl. IT, the present revision petition has been filed.2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the assessee that the commission paid to the managing director and other directors for the asst. yrs. 1980-81 and 1981-82 were disallowed and for the earlier asst. yr. 1983-84 also, this Court in Tax Case (R) No. 938 of 1987 by judg...
Hariharaputhra Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR201(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. This revision, at the instance of the assessee - Hariharaputhra Plantations Ltd., Netta P. O., Kanyakumari District, is directed against the order dated January 29, 1993, of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras-104 (for short 'the Tribunal'), and made in A.T.A. No. 48 of 1990 relatable to the assessment year 1989-90 as respects the income derived from agriculture under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act No. V of 1955 - for short 'the Act'). 2. The assessee-company, it appears, owns 130-50-0 hectares of rubber plantations in Kalial village. In the process of computation of agricultural income for the said year, the claims made by the assessee for deduction of certain alleged expenses are relatable to soil conservation in a sum of Rs. 1,32,043, domestic inquiry legal expenses to the tune of Rs. 750 and commission paid on sales of latex in a sum of Rs. 11,140.04, all totalling to Rs. 1,43,933.0...
S. Jayaraman Vs. M. Singaravelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ434
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Second defendant in O.S. No. 53 of 1993, on the file of Principal District Munsif's Court at Karaikal, is the appellant herein.2. Suit filed by plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 to 3 in this Second Appeal, was one to recover possession of the plaint schedule property from the appellant and 4th respondent herein (defendants in the suit) and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession after taking possession. In the plaint, it was stated that the property originally belonged to one Muthuramalingam Pillai, and on his death, it de-volved on his widow and children, who among themselves executed a release deed on 21.7.1986 under which the plaintiffs alone became the absolute owners of the suit property.3. It is further said that even while Muthuramalingam Pillai was alive, there was an agreement for sale in respect of the plaint schedule property whereby the first defendant agreed to purchase the same for ...