Chennai Court April 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.
K.S. Ramaswamy Asari (Died) and 5 ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC767
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act made in G.O.Ms. No. 387, Housing and Urban Development dated 12.03.1986 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette (Extraordinary) Part II Section 2 dated 17.03.1986 and quash the same in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned.2. At the outset, the learned Government Advocate pointed out that the averments stated in the very affidavit that the petitioners are joint purchaser of the property, which is subject matter of the above acquisition proceedings under Sale Deed dated 09.09.1985, which is much later than the Section 4(1) Notification dated 14.03.1983.3. Mr. M, Selvanayagam, learned Government Advocate relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in Ajay Krishnan Shinghal v. Union of India, : AIR1996SC2677 and contends that the writ petition being...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. G. Dhanamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)165
M. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.At the instance of the CED, Madras, the Tribunal has forwarded the statement of the case and referred the following question of law under s. 64(1) of the ST Act, 1953 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the two gifts of Rs. 5,000 each made by the deceased to his grand children by making books entries in the books maintained for his personal business, would not at all constitute a valid gift and hence neither the inclusion of the gifts under s. 9 of the ED Act nor the abatement of the debts under s. 46(1) is sustainable?'2. One Govindaraja Mudaliar, who died on 4th Jan., 1976 made two gifts of Rs. 5,000 to his grandchildren, i.e., Rs. 5,000 to P. Gajalakshmi and Rs. 5,000 to S. Dhanral by making book entries in the books maintained for his personal business. The Addl. CED held that the gifts have been made within two years prior to his death and hence, under s. 9 of the ED Act, the amounts received...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1997
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)182
M. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following question of law for the opinion of this Court, for the asst. yr. 1979-80 :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the payment of Rs. 22,54,136 in pursuance of the settlement between the assessee-company and the workers under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 over and above the statutory bonus, is allowable under s. 37 of the IT Act, 196l ?'2. The assessee is a company. During the relevant asst, yr. 1979-80, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 22,54,136 to its workers as incentive payment in pursuance of the settlement between the management and the workers under the settlement arrived at under s. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ITO disallowed the amount on the ground that the amount was in excess of the statutory bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1964, and the same should be regarded as a bonus...
Mcdowell and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: [2000]246ITR529(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following two questions of law under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 for our opinion : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax liabilities was not an allowable deduction in the computation of the income 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission paid to the directors was part of remuneration for the purpose of computation of disallowance under s. 40(c) of the IT Act ?' 2. Insofar as the first question is concerned, Mr. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel appearing for the assessee has fairly stated that the issue whether the surtax liability paid by the assessee is an allowable deduction or not is settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in Smith Kline French (I) Ltd. vs . CIT : [1996]219ITR581(SC) wherein the Supreme Court has held th...
N. Sivadasan Vs. the Appellate Authority, Under the Payment of Gratuit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC733; (1997)ILLJ1155Mad; (1997)IIMLJ593
Raju, J. 1. The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated September 20, 1991 in W.P. No. 6587 of 1983 (since reported in : (1992)IILLJ794Mad N. Svadasan v. A. A. under Payment of Gratuity Act, Madras), whereunder the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking for a writ certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent relating to the payment of gratuity in Appeal No. 30/80 dated October 31, 1990 confirming the order of the second respondent - Controlling Authority in P.G. Case No. 252/79 dated December 5, 1979, in so far as those orders denied the receiving of full gratuity and consequently, to direct the third respondent - Management to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 247.50 towards the balance of gratuity award. 2. Though the sum involved is negligible, the principle involved for consideration is an important one and that being the position, th...
Venugopal V. and anr. Vs. Management of Reed Relays and Electronics Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ1455Mad
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above writ appeal is directed against the order dated February 20, 1991 in W.P. No. 3206 of 1986, confirming the order of dismissal passed by the Labour Court, upholding such dismissal by the Management/first respondent herein.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows :The appellants were employed by the first respondent Managment as workers from 1977. The appellants having found that the service conditions of the employees needed improvement, organised a Union called Reed Relays and Electronics Limited Employees Union in September, 1980. The first appellant is the Executive Committee Member and the second appellant is the Vice President of the Union. Aggrieved by the activities of the Union in placing demand, the first respondent retrenched four workmen as a retaliatory measure. The Union protested against the action of the first respondent Management. Subsequently there was a lay-off of the workmen and the workmen also went on...
L. Narayanan Chettiar, Al. Pertanan Shanmugham Vs. R.M. Loganathan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ27
Govardhan, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the com-mon order passed by the Subordinate Judge Sivaganga in E.A. Nos. 158 of 1990 and 160 of 1990 in E.P. No. 17 of 1986 in Madurai Sub Court O.S. No. 398 of 1977.2. The averments in the amended petition in E.A. No. 158 of 1990 as follows: The petitioner is a third patty in the decree. The petitionermentioned property belongs in the petitioner's grandfather Narayanan Chettiar uncertainly. After his death, the petitioner's father Lakshmanan Chettiar became entitled to the same. By registered partition deed dated 24.8.1939 among the petitioner's father Lakshmanan Chettiar and his two sons Alagusundaram Chettiar and minor petitioner represented by his father as guardian, all the properties except the petitionermentioned property were divided by metes and bounds. The petition mentioned property was kept in common. After the death of their father, the petitioner is entitled to a half share in the petitionmentioned property. It was en-joyed b...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Saraswathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ434
C.V. Govardhan, J.1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge), Erode in M.C.O.P. No. 330 of 1984.2. The averments in the petition are as follows: The deceased Subramanian was proceeding in van No. TNJ 3409 from Coimbatore to Salem on 26.4.1982 at about 2.30 a.m. The driver of the van drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry No. TDQ 9169 near Nasianoor Pallipalayam Road. Subramanian died in the accident. He was then 32 years old. The petitioners are his wife, parents and minor daughter. They have lost the breadwinner of the family and hence they have filed a claim for Rs. 2,50,000/-. The fourth respondent is the driver of the lorry. Fifth respondent is the owner of the same and the sixth respondent is the insurer. The first respondent is the driver of the van belonging to the second respondent under whom deceased Subramanian was employed.3. The first respondent remained ex parte.4. The secon...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Raab Pipe Works (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: [1997]226ITR710(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is a company. The question that arises is regarding the allowance of the contribution made by the assessee as an employer towards a recognised provident fund maintained by it. The assessee made a matching contribution of an equal amount that was made by two of its director-employees, viz., N. J. K. Raj and M. A. Abraham, to the provident fund recognised by the Income-tax Department. The assessee made a contribution during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, a sum of Rs. 3,600 in the case of N.J.K. Raj, and another sum of Rs. 3,000 in the case of M. A. Abraham. The Income-tax Officer found that the contribution made by the assessee was in excess of the limit prescribed under rule 75(1) of the Income-tax Rules, and he, therefore, held that the entire contribution made by the assessee as an employer as well as by the employee has to be taken into account to determine the ceiling limit prescribed under rule 75(1) of the Income-...
K.U. Ibrahim Vs. B.M.A. Sukoor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC647
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J. 1. The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has filed this civil revision petition against the concurrent order passed by both the Authorities below under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, directing the petitioner herein to hand over possession of the petition-building to the respondent landlord for the latter to carry out the repairs to the said building.2. Before referring to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, I may point out the reasoning of learned lower Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 30 of 1996, which can be gathered from the following passages appearing in its order:-3. The only two submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is, (1) the undertaking that is given by the respondent 1 and lord pursuant to Section 14(2) of the Act, is not in accordance with law and (2) even though the Municipal Authority, as mentioned in the extracted passage, has given p...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »