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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.P.S. Parameswaran Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: [2000]241ITR748(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessment year involved is 1981-82 and the assessment was made on a Hindu undivided family and A. P. S. Parameswaran Pillai, was the karta. The assessee was assessed in the status of 'Hindu undivided family (specified)'. 2. The facts leading to the reference are as follows : One A. P. S. Sethurama Pillai was the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his sons. There was a partition in the family in which certain properties were allotted to his share and he was assessed in the status of Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his wife. It seems that after the partition, A.P.S. Sethurama Pillai passed away and the properties obtained by AP.S. Sethurama Pillai on partition devolved on his heirs. The Income-tax Officer included the income derived from the assets devolved on the assessee from the estate of Sethurama Pillai as income arising from the joint family and he made an addition of 1/7th share income from the estate of the...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Egmore Benefit Society Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: [1999]237ITR606(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is assessed in the status of a company in which the public are not substantially interested and the assessee claimed as deduction a sum of Rs. 1,84,575 in the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1978-79, relevant previous year ended on December 31, 1977, on account of arrears of bonus payable for the period from January 1, 1976, to December 31, 1976. That apart, the assessee also claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 3,55,221 as bonus payable in respect of the relevant previous year, namely January 1, 1977, to December 31, 1977. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee of a sum of Rs. 1,84,575 on the ground that it represented arrears of bonus and, therefore, it did not relate to the year of account. As for the claim of the assessee for a deduction of Rs. 3,55,221, the Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,84,815 on the ground that the amount is in excess of 20 per cent of the pay and in this view of the matter, h...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K. Selvaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)230
N.V. Balsubramanian, J:An interesting question of law arises in all the tax cases regarding the status of the assessee to be adopted with reference to the compensation amount received on the abolition of impartible estate under the provisions of the Madras Estate (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Estates Abolition Act'). The common question of law referred in the above tax cases, for our consideration reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income derived by the assessee from out of the compensation received under the Madras Estates (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 should be assessed in the hands of the assessee as HUF and not in the status of `Individual'?'2. The tax case references arise both under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Tax case Nos. 449 and 450 of 1985 arise u...
Pattaya Alias Kuppuswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Rangaswamy Gounder and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ546
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The landlords aggrieved against the order passed by the learned appellate authority, dismissing the eviction petition, have filed the above revision.2. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1982 on the file of the learned Rent Control/District Munsif, Palani for evicting the tenants under Sections 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(iii), 14(1)(b)and 10(3)(a)of the Act 18 of 1960 as amended. The tenants contested the same by filing respective counters. The Rent Controller in his order dated 29.12.1987 accepting the case of the landlords on all the grounds ordered eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the second respondent in the R.C.O.P., filed appeal in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1987 on the file of the appellate authority, Dindigul. The appellate authority accepting the case of the tenant reversed the findings of the Rent Controller, and consequently set aside the order of eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the landlords/petitioners have filed the above revision.3. The properties i...
Thulasi and ors. Vs. Jagannathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ704
K. Sampath, J.1. Defendants 2 to 11 who are the legal representatives of the first defendant in the suit are the appellants. Deceased first defendant and the respondents were brothers being sons of One Veerappan Voykarar. The suit O.S.No. 414 of 1989 was filed by the respondents herein for partition and separate possession of several items of properties alleging as follows:Items 1 and 2 of the suit properties belonged to Alaviammal mother of the plaintiffs and the first defendant. Items 3 to 7 were lease-hold properties belonging to the joint family, Those items were taken on lease by Veerappan Voyakarar from the owner one chettiar several years prior to the suit. Veerappa Voyakarar was cultivating the said lands and he died about 25 years prior to the suit. Alaviammal also died two years prior to the suit. The first defendant Ramayyan was the eldest male member of the joint family and he was managing the properties of the joint family as kartha. After the death of the parents of the p...
Bala Seva Educational and Charitable Trust, Represented by Its Chairma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ570
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records Comprised in the proceedings of the 1st respondent's Lr. No. 13655/J1/97-4, dated 13.8.1997, and quash the same in so far as it relates to petitioner-Shanmuga College of Engineering is concerned, and consequently direct the respondents to accord minority status to the petitioner institution.2. The petitioner applied to the 1st respondents on 25.6.1997, seeking minority status, viz., as a linguistic minority institution as all the trustees were all versed in Sanskrit and were committed to the cause of establishing Sanskrit as an important means of communication and in view of its intrinsic capability of being adopted to the modern technology. The petitioner also attached a copy of the certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional officer, Thanjavur, certifying that the petitioner Trust has established the shanmuga college of Engineering at Thirumalai Samudram, Thanjavur Taluk, ...
S. Mariappan (Died) and 3 Others Vs. M. Madasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC149; (1998)IMLJ533
ORDER1. The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The suit O.S.No. 209 of 1984 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin was filed by the plaintiff who claims to be the son of the deceased defendant, Mariappan, who died after the disposal of the first appeal A.S.No.120 of 1989 and before the filing of the Second appeal before this Court.3. According to the plaintiff he and his father the first defendant constituted a joint family. There was joint family nucleus and with the help of the income from the nucleus the properties were purchased in the name of the defendant. His mother was also employed and the income earned by themother of the plaintiff was also utilised for purchasing the properties. According to him the first schedule formed part of the joint family property. The second schedule property was purchased in the name of the first defendant, third schedule propertied were purchased in the name of the mother of the first defendant, and the fourth sch...
Kannammal Vs. Bagyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC280; (1998)IMLJ665
ORDER1. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.158 of 96 against the petitioner seeking a prayer for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession. Pending the suit, the respondent filed LA.No.271 of 1996 seeking a prayer for an order of temporary injunction; The petitioner filed a counter objecting the said petition. Pending proceedings the petitioner filed I.A.No.224 of 97 in I.A.No.271 of 96 under Order 19, Rule 2 C.P.C. to direct the respondent herein to appear before the court so as to enable her to cross-examine the plaintiff with respect to the averments in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.217 of 1996. That was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter. The lower court in its order dated 21.3.97 dismissed the petition and aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the above revision.2. The petitioner has filed the above application under Order 19, Rule 2, C.P.C, to direct the plaintiff to come to the court for the purpose of cross...
C. Ramanathan Vs. State Rep. by S.i. of Police District Crime Branch M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC624
ORDER1. Heard both the parties.2. The above revision is directed against the order dated 28.8.94 in C.A.No.90 of 1994 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the order of conviction and sentence dated 9.6.94 in C.C.No.1023 of 1994 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, convicting the petitioner under Section 417, I.P.C and sentencing him for six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of which, one month rigorous imprisonment in addition.3. The petitioner; who was A1, was facing a trial in C.C.No.1023 of 1992 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai, along with four other accused namely, A2 to A5, with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 5.3.90, wherein, the petitioner, namely, A1, borrowed a sum of Rs.57,000 agreeing to repay the same after one year with an interest of Rs.17.000, for the purpose of his film distribution business and issued a cheque dated 22.6.93 for the ent...
Dr. Mrs. Shams Vs. the Commissioner of Collegiate Education College Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC609
ORDER1. Placing reliance upon an order issued by the State Government,Order No.1785, Education (II-3) Department, dated 5th December, 1988, thepetitioner who is a lecturer in Philosophy in Madras Christian College claimsa right to be appointed as the Head of the Department of Philosophy on theground that she is the senior lecturer, having entered service as Lecturer inJanuary, 1979 after she had acquired a Doctor of Philosophy degree in July,1978. She had been designated as senior lecturer from 1.1.1986. She isadmittedly senior to Mr.M.Gabriel who has been appointed as the Head of theDepartment of Philosophy. He had entered service as lecturer on 3.10.1979,21/2 months after petitioner had entered service. He was designated as seniorlecturer on 3.10.1986, 9 months after petitioner had been so designated. Heacquired Ph.D. Degree in the year 1992, 14 years after the petitioner hadacquired that qualification.2. The Government Order relied upon by the petitioner was issued pursuant to the r...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »