Chennai Court August 1997 Judgments
Velimalai Rubber Company Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR618(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee has come up in revision aggrieved by the disallowance of its claims for deduction of Rs. 1,000 being the amount paid by the company to its managing director towards his personal accident insurance premium to cover the medical expenses that payment having been approved by the company, the sum of Rs. 147 paid towards property tax for the properties belonging to the company of its head office situated at Kerala State : the company's estate measuring 1284-94 acres being situated in Velimalai Village, Nagercoil District; a sum of Rs. 27,435.53 alleged to be the repair charges of the vehicles in respect of which proper records had not been filed; a sum of Rs. 4,977.20 being the alleged expenditure on postage and telegram; that amount have been disallowed on the ground of personal use; a sum of Rs. 1,532.35 being the amount of interest paid on overdraft disallowance on the ground that the loan and the purpose for which loan had been obtained had not been m...
Tag this Judgment!K. Leela Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT398(Mad)
1. The appellant, who has been tried for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 21 of the said Act, Under Sections 8(c) r/w Sections 28 & 23 and Rule 53 of the said Act, 1915, and under Section 13 of the Import and Export Control Order, 1962 and Section 135(1)(A)(ii) of the said Act and convicted for the offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 21 and Section 8(c) read with Section 23 and 28 and read with Rule 53 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under each section and to pay a total fine of Rs. One Lakh, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years has filed this criminal appeal. 2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this criminal appeal are as follows :- On 30-9-1987 morning on previous information, the Officers of the Customs, Circle of Rameswaram intercepted the accused while she was proceeding towards Rameswaram Port...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kasinathan, Lr of Sp. Chidambaram Servai Vs. N. Athiappan Servai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)CTC717; (1998)IMLJ137
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The second appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff who succeeded before the trial court. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share. His case was that he purchased a number of properties and also the 'B' schedule property in the name of his wife. They were issueless. Hence, they were bringing up the 2nd defendant as their foster daughter and after some time, when the question of marriage of the 2nd defendant came, as dispute arose between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant, who is his wife. He wanted the 2nd defendant to marry a boy to be chosen by him while the 3rd defendant was insisting on the plaintiff to get the 2nd defendant married to the 1st defendant who is her relative. The 3rd defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, the 'B' schedule property, which originally belonged to Karuppanan Servai, was settled in his name and in the name of the 3rd defendant...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thirunavukkarasu and anr. Vs. J. Jayalalitha and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: 1997(3)CTC229
ORDERShivaraj Patil, J.1. The defendant in C.S. No. 322 of 1997 has filed O.S.A. No. 179 of 1997 aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.1997 made by the learned single Judge in Application No. 356 of 1997 in the said suit C.S.No. 322of 1997, under which an order of injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Appeals, O.S.A.Nos.180 to 183, 185 and 186of 1997 are filed by the applicants who prayed to add them as additional defendants in the said suit C.S.No.322 of 1997 aggrieved by the order rejecting their applications by the learned single Judge by the very common order dated 17.6.1997.2. O.S.A.No.184 of 1997 is filed by the Applicants in O.A. No. 1917 of 1997. They had filed the said application to direct the Registry to place all the papers before the Honourable Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders during the course of hearing of the case by the learned single judge. It is stated in ground No.l of the appeal memorandum that no order was passed and that Application No. 1917 ...
Tag this Judgment!L. Sundaresa Naicker Vs. Baby Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ561
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the order of eviction obtained by the respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 968 of 1985 cannot be given effect to in view of the subsequent civil litigations with regard to the title to the property. In the civil proceedings, it is admitted that the respondent herein was found that she is not the owner of the property. As the respondent is not the owner of the property it is the contention of the petitioner that the ex parte order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 968 of 1985 cannot be executed. Both the courts below have dismissed the said petition on the ground that the civil proceeding with regard to the title of the property was pending and, hence, at this stage, it cannot be said that the respondent is not the owner of the property. However, subsequently on 22.1.1993, in O.S. No. 4869 of 1982 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, the respondent was found to have no title in...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kasinathan Vs. N. Athiappan Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ137
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. The Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff who succeeded before the trial court. He filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share. His case was the he purchased a number of properties and also the 'B' schedule property in the same of his wife. They were issueless. Hence, they were bringing up the 2nd defendant as their foster daughter and after some time, when the question of marriage of the 2nd defendant came, a dispute arose between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant, who is his wife. He wanted the 2nd defendant to marry a boy to be chosen by him while the 3rd defendant was insisting on the plaintiff to get the 2nd defendant married to the 1st defendant who is her relative. The 3rd defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiff, the 'B' schedule property, which origi-nally belonged to Karuppanan Servai, was settled in his name and in the name of the 3rd defendant. Henc...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ponnusamy Vs. N. Namis Dhas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)1MLJ407
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. This revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff in the unnumbered suit O.S.S.R. No. 7066 of 1966 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.2. Before taking the plaint on file, the Court below by order, dated 28.2.1997 directed the petitioner/plaintiff to remit Rs. 13,180 towards stamp duty and penalty in respect of document (item II) filed along with the plaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been referred.3. The petitioner had instituted the suit for the recovery of Rs. 61,000 along with simple interest at the rate of 36% per annum from 16.12.1996 till the date of realisation on the entire mortgage value and costs and to pass a preliminary mortgage decree against the first defendant charged on plaint A Schedule property at Rs. 61,000 with interest and also for other consequential reliefs.4. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff/petitioner stated that the first defendant on 29.1.1994 executed anomalous, unregiste...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jaganathan and Four Others Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC21
ORDER1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners in the above writ petitions are working as Superintendent, Assistant Quality Inspector, Watchman, Packer and Bill Clerk respectively in the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown at Athur. 3. Having been served with an order of suspension dated 7.3.97 on the ground that certain irregularities have been noticed by the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Salem and an enquiry into grave charges against them is contemplated. The petitioners were deemed to have been placed under ad interim suspension from service with effect from 6.3.97 in the public interest. 4. It is alleged that the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Salem, intercepted a lorry at 7.20 pm on 5.3.97 and found that the lorry was carrying 120 bags of rice from Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Godown, Athur, which was meant for public distribution system to be delivered at Bangalore. 5. On the basis of the statement obtained from one. Arul Prakash, son ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Nagamani and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: [1999]239ITR202(Mad)
M.S. Janarthanam J. 1. Desirable it is, to pen down a common order in all these actions. The assessees are either holders of rubber or coffee estates in Nagarcoil or Yercaud. No doubt, the assessees are different and distinct persons. So too, the Assessing Officers. The assessment order also is not the same, but different. 2. But, none the less, one common thread runs in all those actions and such a common thread is none else than the question relatable to the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital either under clause (e) or (k) of section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1955-for short 'the Act'). Disallowance under either of the clauses, as aforesaid was right through from the Assessing Officer till up to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 104 (for short 'the Tribunal'). 3. All the aggrieved assessees resorted to the present actions and now they are before us questioning the legality or otherwise of such d...
Tag this Judgment!Glenburn Estate Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: [1999]240ITR719(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.1. In this revision the assessee has come up with the contention that any amount of interest paid on the outstanding borrowings is to be deducted from the agricultural income as an expenditure laid out or expended wholly W exclusively for the purpose of the land under section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The amount claimed as deduction on that ground was Rs. 3,56,891.46. The Assistant Commissioner allocated this interest to the purpose referred to in sections 5(k) and 5(e) of the Act. He allowed in accordance with the second proviso under section 5(k) of the Act after calculating nine per cent. of 25 per cent. of the agricultural income for, the year, the income for the year being Rs. 14,08,573. The Assessing Officer had allowed that sum and the Assistant Commissioner, on Appeal, affirmed it. The Assistant Commissioner also allowed a sum of Rs. 1,78,882.02 as interest under section 5(e) of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »