Chennai Court December 1997 Judgments
United Bleachers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 2)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR295(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1979-80. '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was right in holding that the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes should be followed by the Income-tax Officer and the assessee should be granted extra-shift allowance accordingly ?' 2. The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. In so far as the first question of law that is referred to for our consideration is concerned the Appellate Tribunal recorded its finding that the assessee was not enti...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Dr. T.K. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: [2001]103CompCas725(Mad)
J. Kanakaraj, J.1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 170 of 1983 is the appellant before us. The first and second respondents, who were the contesting respondents are the fifth and eighth defendants respectively in the said suit.2. The appellant/plaintiff is the State Bank of India established under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and the Karur branch of the bank filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,43,708.30 for a mortgage decree in respect of A, B, C, D and E schedule properties, for a personal decree against defendants Nos. 2, 5 and 8, for a charge over the handloom goods, stock-in-trade for the custody of the plaintiff-bank and for realisation of the amounts due from defendants Nos. 1 to 8. Defendant No. 9 was subsequently added because after the filing of the suit, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were adjudicated insolvents, on applications taken out by other creditors. The plaint case is that defendants Nos. 2 to 8 approached the plaintiff-bank and sought for financial accommodation for the f...
Tag this Judgment!Rahmathullah Shuthari Alias Peer Hazzrath Vs. the Muslim Jamath of Eac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ591
S.S. Subramani, J.1. This second appeal is by one of the legal representatives to the second defendant, i.e., 6th defendant in O.S. No. 1057 of 1976, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirappalli.2. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:'(a) declaring that the Muslim Jamath of Eachampatti alone is entitled to the management of the Kabarathan and the usufructs of the trees standing thereon;(b) and as consequential relief for the permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men and agents from in any way interferingwith the possession and enjoyment of the suit property with fruit bearing trees by the plaintiff;(c) for costs of suit payable by the defendants to plaintiff from defendants;(d) and to grant such further or other reliefs....3. The suit was institution on 4.11.1976, by the Secretary of the Jamath. He has been examined as P.W. I in the suit.4. The material averments in the plaint may be summarised thus:It is filed as a representative suit un...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Murali Vs. Jeetmul Jaichandal (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ488
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. These four civil revision petitions arise out of two Rent Control Proceedings, i.e., R.C.O.P. Nos. l139 and 1140 of 1989. C.R.P. Nos. 2859 and 2876 of 1997 arise out of R.C.O.P. No. 1140 of 1989, while C.R.P. Nos. 2874 and 2861 of 1997 arise out of R.C.O.P. No. 1139 of 1989.2. C.R.P. Nos. 2859 and 2874 of 1997 have been filed against the appeals preferred by the landlord against the order under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in R.C.O.P. Nos. 1140 and 1139 of 1989.3. C.R.P. Nos. 2861 and 2876 of 1997 are preferred against the orders in Rent Control Appeals, in turn preferred against the orders in the main Rent Control proceedings i.e. RC.O.P. Nos. 1139 and 1140 of 1989.4. The landlord, who is the petitioner in all the Civil Revision Petitions filed R.C.O.P. Nos. 1139 and 1140 of 1989 before the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction from the premises bearing door Nos. 244 and 264, Walltax Road Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmugam Vs. Arumuga Pulavar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ705
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred by the same person i.e., the plaintiff in O.S. No. 526 of 1980, out of which the first second appeal arises and the third defendant in O.S. No. 53 of 1983, out of which the latter second appeal arises.2. The appellant filed O.S. No. 526 of 1980 for redemption and for future mesne profits against one Arumuga Pularvar and three others, while Arumuga Pulavar, the first defendant in O.S. No. 526 of 1980, filed O.S. No. 53 of 1983 against the third defendant in O.S. No. 526 of 1980, for injunction restraining him from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. As according to him, he was in possession of the suit property by virtue of the doctrine of part performance and also for specific performance.3. The contention of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Sadagopachariar. He othied the suit property in favour of one Thangamani Ammal, wife of the first defendant-Arumuga Pulav...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sudarsan Ciuts (i) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)150CTR(Mad)240
M. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of s. 40(c) r/w ss. 2(31) and 2(32) of the IT Act, the Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions of s. 40(c) are not attracted ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,33,756, being contribution made by the assessee to the approved gratuity fund, is an admissible deduction T'2. The assessee is a company carrying on business in chits- During the course of assessment proceedings for the asst. yr, 1978-79, the assessee claimed deduction for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000, being the remuneration paid to the managerial staff of the holding company under an agreement dt. Ist May, 1973 ent...
Tag this Judgment!Pankajam Ammal and ors. Vs. Thulasidoss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ737
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The tenants aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below have filed the above Revision.2. The landlords filed R. CO.P. No. 16 of 1989 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Karur to evict the tenants, under Sections l0(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended. In the petition it is stated that by a settlement deed dated 9.2.1962. one Govindarajulu Naidu who is the original owner of the property settled the property in question along with the other properties in favour of his sons, including one G. Ramachandran who is the husband of the second petitioner. He died issueless. But, during his lifetime, on 6.3.1963, the second petitioner in the R.C.O.P. and her husband duly adopted the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P. She had executed a release deed in respect of her life-interest in the property in favour of the first petitioner in the R.C.O.P., the adopted son. Ac...
Tag this Judgment!S. Murugan Vs. Vaikunda Lakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ568
K. Govindarajan, J.1. The husband filed O.P.No. 80 of 1990 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram praying for a decree for divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent on 24.1.1988. It was re-numbered after it was transferred to the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, as O.P.No. 28 of 1994. The wife filed O.P.No. 53 of 1991 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and for costs. The said petition also was transferred to the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai and re-numbered as O.P.No. 27 of 1994. pending the said O.P. the husband filed I.A.No. 260 of 1991 seeking an order of injunction restraining the wife from making complaints to the dowry prohibition cell and filing criminal cases. The husband and wife contested the respective petitions filed by each other, by filing counters in the respective petitions. The learned Sub Judge in his order dated 28.9.1994, all...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Mutiuah Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)77
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.This is a combined reference both at the instance of the accountable person and at the instance of the Department arising out of the order of the Tribunal in E.D.A. No. 133/Mds/72-73 dt. 31st Aug., 1978 under the provisions of the ED Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The following questions of law have been referred to us :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the policy No. 83920339 belonged to the HUF and s. 7 of the Estate Duty would apply to the policy amount -2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case in respect of the policy amount of Rs. 1,21,728 received under policy No. 83428875, ss. 7 and 14 of ED Act would apply in accordance with the proportion of 23100/109725 and 46200/86625 respectively ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the lineal descedants' share in the principal value of the deceased's estate in terms of s. 34(1)(c) of the ED Act, 1953, was not p...
Tag this Judgment!P. Chellappan Nadar Vs. Panchayat Union and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ488
K. Sampath, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant in both the second appeals. He filed two suits, one O.S. No. 536 of 1973 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai against the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Kanyakumari District for declaration of his title and recovery of possession. He filed O.S. No. 562 of 1978 against the Panchayat Union, Melpuram as the first defendant and the District Collector, Kanyakumari District as the second defendant. There was a joint trial, common evidence was taken and a common judgment was pronounced. He filed appeals A.S. No. 139 of 1980 against the decision in O.S. No. 576 of 1973 and A.S. No. 138 of 1980 against the decision in O.S. No. 562 of 1978. Both the appeals were dismissed and the respective second appeals have been filed here.2. The facts as set out in O.S. No. 536 of 1973 are as follows:Suit item No. 1 is S.No. 2676-B of Vilavancode village having an extent of 1,100 cents of land situate west of S.No. 2676-A an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »