Chennai Court April 1997 Judgments

Kuthalingam Vs. Jahir Hussain

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1997)2MLJ496

ORDERAR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the landlord. He is the owner of the premises Door Nos. 29, 30, 31, 40-A and 40-B of Servaikaran Pudhu Street, Ward No. 2, Street No. 11, Shengottah. The petitioner tenant is the lessee of Door No. 30 of the same building. The respondent filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Controller, Shengottah for evicting the petitioner from the said premises on two grounds namely, wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement for additional accommodation. The rent controller rejected the petition for eviction filed by the respondent herein on both the grounds and dismissed the petition on 22.9.1995. As against this order, the landlord preferred R.C.A. No. 8 of 1995. Before the Appellate Authority, the grounds of wilful default of payment of rent was not proved. The lower Appellate Authority accepted the case of the respondent landlord on the ground of bona fide r...

S. Kuttappan (Died) and Anr. Vs. Civil Advocates Clerks' Association r ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1998)1MLJ260

ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. C.R.P. No. 1386 of 1993 is by the tenant and C.R.P. No. 3181 of 1993 is by the landlord. They arise from the same proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 21 of 1986, on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Dindigul.2. Parties herein will be referred to according to their array in the rent control proceedings.3. Landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has committed wilful default in payment of rent and the building also requires immedi-ate demolition and reconstruction.4. Both the grounds were opposed by the tenant.5. Rent Controller recorded evidence, both oral and documentary, and, after considering them in detail, he ordered eviction.6. The matter was taken in appeal by the tenant in R.C.A. No. 31 of 1990 on the file of Principal Subor-dinate Judge, (Appellate Authority), Dindigul. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction in so far as the finding that the building requires im-mediate demolition and reconstruction i...

The Divisional Manager, Advances Section-ii, Canara Bank and anr. Vs. ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1998)2MLJ67

ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Material facts which arise for consideration in this civil revision petition may be summarised as follows:Petitioners herein are Divisional Manager and Branch Manager of a Nationalised Bank, namely, Canara Bank. 1st respondent availed a financial facility from the said Bank, and the same was guaranteed by second respondent. It is seen that there was correspondence between the petitioners and respondents regarding rate of interest. It is the case of the respondents that the Bank agreed for reduction in rate of interest, and that was assured by the then Branch Manager. The said allegation was disputed by the petitioners. At any rate, the Bank itself offered some concession, i.e., a reduction of Rs. 7,000 in interest provided the entire balance was paid in a lump within a particular time. When the matter was not settled, petitioner filed O.S.No. 32 of 1992, on the file of Additional District Judge's Court, Pondicherry, for recovery of money by sale of the mortgag...

The Jawaharpuram Devanga Weavers Co-operative Production and Sale Soci ...

Court: Chennai

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O.Ms.No. 626, Housing dated 05.04.1978 in publishing Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and G.O.Ms.No. 317, Housing and Urban Development dated 05.05.1981 in issuing Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on the file of the first respondent and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 07.05.1981 and quash the same and forbear the respondents from proceeding with acquisition of the Petitioner's land comprised in G.S.No. 236, Kavundampalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk measuring 3.27 acres.2. The brief facts of the case is stated as follows:-The petitioner society purchased an extent of 3.27 acres comprised in G.S.No.236, Kavandampalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 09.07.1968 with a view to locate a Housing Co...

S. Parameshwaran, Associated Travels P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director of En ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1998]94CompCas118(Mad)

Raju J.1. The above appeals may be dealt with together for the reason that they have been dealt with by the authorities below likewise and on account of the fact that they involve the same parties arising out of one and the same transaction. The authorities below, Deputy Director of Enforcement, Southern Zone, Sastri Bhavan, Madras, in his order dated June 23, 1996, as also the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board in its order dated June 26, 1992, have dealt with the factual details and it is unnecessary for us to advert to all those details having regard to the narrow controversy raised before us and involved in these appeals.2. Under the impugned orders, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on Associated Travels (P.) Ltd., the appellant in C.M.A. No. 1211 of 1993, for the alleged contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the levy of penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed under section 9(1)(a) of the Foreig...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Parasmal Chordia

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)468; [1998]233ITR147(Mad)

Abdul Hadi, J.1. The question of law referred to this Court by the Tribunal under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in relation to the asst. yr. 1977-78, in this tax case reference, preferred by the Revenue against the respondent assessee, who is an individual, is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of s. 23 of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the actual rental receipts should be treated as annual letting value though the municipal authorities have fixed the annual value at a higher figure than the actual rent received ?'2. The only dispute before the Tribunal was whether the assessing authority was right in determining the 'annual value' spoken to in s. 23(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, of the house property at No. 38-C, Mount Road, Madras, at Rs. 1,22,850 on the basis of the municipal valuation, as against Rs. 1,18,582, returned by the assessee as the ac...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Lucas Tvs Limited.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Mad)449; [1997]226ITR281(Mad)

N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a combined reference at the instance of the assessee as well as by the Revenue. The Tax Case Nos. 1816 and 1817 of 1984 are at the instance of the assessee and TC No. 1818 of 1984 is at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year involved is common for both the tax cases, viz., 1977-78. The Tribunal has forwarded a consolidated statement of case and referred the following five questions of law for the opinion of this Court : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the amount of income actually exempt under s. 10(6)(viia) would be excluded from consideration for the purposes of disallowance under s. 40(c) r/w s. 40A(5) in the case of director-cum-employee who is also a foreign technician 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case surtax liability is not an admissible deduction under the provisions of the IT Act 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances...

Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. C.M. Kothari Charitable Trust

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [2000]246ITR466(Mad)

ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a petition filed by the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Madras, to direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions of law under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the asst. yr. 1985-86. '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the CIT(A) had given a finding that the income received by the assessee from investments made after 1st June, 1973 was from the Banks and other approved investments, and hence there is no violation of the provisions of s. 11(5) r/w s. 13(1)(d)?' 2. 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the CIT(A)'s order wherein it was held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 11 in respect of that part of the income which did not violate the provisions of s. 11(5) r/w s. 13(1)(d)?' 2. The assessee is a Trust. The assessee f...

Lucas Tvs Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1999]236ITR752(Mad)

N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. This is a combined reference at the instance of the assessee as well as by the Revenue. Tax Cases Nos. 1816 and 1817 of 1984, are at the instance of the assessee and T.C. No. 1818 of 1984, is at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment year involved is common for both the tax cases, viz., 1977-78. The Appellate Tribunal has forwarded a consolidated statement of case and referred the following five questions of law for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the amount of income actually exempt under section 10(6)(viia) would be excluded from consideration for the purposes of disallowance under section 40(c) read with section 40A(5) in the case of director-cum-employee who is also a foreign technician 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, surtax liability is not an admissible deduction under the provisions of the Income-tax Act 3. Whet...

Kalrayan Hills Tribal Vs. Kalrayan Hills Panchayat Union and Others

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1997Mad306

ORDER1. The above writ petition is filed praying for issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the orders of the respondents 2 and 3 dated 4-10-1996 and 3-5-1996 respectively and direct the respondents 1 to 5 not to dig giantwells in Pottiyam village for supply of water for Kallakurichi Sugar Mill-II, Kachirapalayam.2. The petitioner is a registered association having more than 200 members of small agricultural land-holders doing agricultural operation in Pottiyam village. The sixth respondent proposed to about Kallakurichi Co-operative Sugar Factory-II in the year 1994. For the sugar factory, preliminary work of construction of buildings is going on. They proposed to dig giant wells for getting water supply to the said factory. The petitioner-association immediately knowing the said proposal raised objections stating that the proposal of digging giant wells would affect for the members of the association in getting water for their agricultural purpose. According to the petitio...