Chennai Court January 1998 Judgments
A.A.A. Kotchadainaidu and Another Vs. Akkayanaicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC18; (1998)IMLJ666
ORDER1. The respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.322 of 1972 on the file of thelearned District Munsif, Uttamapalayam against the petitioners seeking adecree for a sum of Rs. 18,912 being the principal and interest due on apromissory note dated 3.6.1969 executed by the defendants/petitioners infavour of the respondent/plaintiff. The said suit was decreed by the courtbelow on 2.5.1973. To execute the said decree, the respondent filed E.P.No.412 of 1989 on 13.9.1989. The petitioners filed E.A.No. 399 of 1991 toterminate the Execution Petition No. 412 of 1989 on the ground that it wasbarred by limitation. According to them, the decree in O.S.No.322 of 1972could have been executed on or before 2.5.1985. Therespondent/decree-holder filed a counter stating that at the instance of thepetitioners, in I.A.No. 1675 of 1979 the decree was amended on 18.10.1979giving effect to the benefits under Act 8 of 1973 and so the date for thepurpose of limitation has to be construed only from 18.10.1979 and ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Srinivasan Vs. Muthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC94; (1998)IIIMLJ466
ORDER1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, in IA No.322 of 1997 in OS No.904 of 1995 dated 24.2.1997 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for filing additional written statement in the said suit.2. The said suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed on 17.11.1992 for a sum of Rs.3,000 with interest thereon. Hence the suit for a total sum of Rs.3,805 was filed as due from the suit promissory note. The petitioner herein filed written statement contending inter alia that be had not executed any promissory note on 17.11.1992, and that the suit promissory note has been filed after correcting the month on which the suit promissory had been executed. It is further contended that it was only in January, 1992 the defendant had executed the promissory note in favour of the husband of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,500/- and in the written statement certain ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Sadasivamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: [2000]246ITR39(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a partner. The assessee is assessed in the status of an individual. For the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, the assessee is a partner of a firm styled as Annama-layar Match Works, Sivakasi, in his capacity as a 'karta' of the Hindu undivided family. His wife is also a partner in the said firm. The Income-tax Officer, who completed the assessment of the assessee for the assessment years in the status of an individual, included the share income arising to the assessee's wife under the provisions of Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who allowed the appeals.2. The Department carried the matter in appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal also held that the provisions of Section 64 of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked to club the wife's income in the assessee's hands in his individual capacity. On the application filed by the Rev...
Tag this Judgment!Sholingur Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: [1999]240ITR460(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', has referred the following question of law, for our consideration : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the issue relating to the grant of interest under Section 214 cannot be entertained even though an appeal was filed contesting various additions apart from the denial of interest under Section 214 of the Income-Lax Act ?'2. The assessee is a company. The assessce, in the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 1980-81 claimed interest before the Income-tax Officer under Section 214 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer did not grant the interest on the ground that a sum of Rs. 25.8 lakhs paid by the assessee was not an advance tax, but an ad hoc payment and, hence, he did not allow any interest under Section 214 of the Act, even though there was a refund of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kamadhenu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR17(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court in T. C. P. Nos. 693 and 694 of 1985, dated November 25, 1984, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that for the purpose of disallowance under Section 40(b) only net interest should be taken into account and not gross interest ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 9,063 being the interest paid by the assessee-firm to Shri Shantharam could not be disallowed under Section 40(b) of the Act as the partner had obtained loan from Egmore Benefit Society for the purpose of the assessee-firm and in reality the payment was made only to Egmore Benefit Society ?'2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in textiles. In the assessment completed for the assessment year 197...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gnanambigai Mills
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR783(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. These tax cases (references) are at the instance of the Revenue.2. The common question of law, as below is submitted by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for this court's opinion ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the amounts paid to the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the group gratuity scheme should be allowed as a deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is sustainable in law ?'3. The respondent, Gnanambigai Mills, Coimbatore, is an assessee to income-tax. The matter relates to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The assessee provided for gratuity for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The assessee, it is said, paid a quantified sum by way of a premium to the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the group gratuity scheme for the said assessment years.4. When the Income-tax Act was amended retrospectively by the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muruganandan Vs. State by Inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ3722
ORDERA. Raman, J.1. Since the parties are the same in both the applications and identical question of law is raised in both these matters, these two applications were taken up together, heard and a common order is rendered hereunder.2. CC 331 of 1996 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam is with reference to the complaint dated 1-5-1994 by Asst. Executive Engineer, TNEB against Thavamani Ammal Prabakar, Rajendran and Md. Ismail. The allegation is that when a raid party of TNEB checked the High Tension Service Connection No. 01001 installed in Venkateswara Industries situate at Madurai Rajapalayam Road, it was found that the factory was running and all the lights were burning. But the meter was not running. On checking it was found that with a view to avoid the recording of the cosumption on the meter a line had been taken from the transformer by passing the meter and energy was drawn directly from the transformer and this has been done with a view to commit thef...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sundaram Abex Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(100)ELT18(Mad)
Shivaraj Patil, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25-3-1992 made by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2107 of 1989. Few facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following :In the course of this judgment we will refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the writ petition for convenience. The petitioner filed the writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in C. No. V/6806/15/20/88 Order 42/88, dated 21-12-1988 and to quash the same. The case of the petitioner as can be gathered from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It has its factory at Padi, Madras-50. It is carrying on business in the manufacture of Brake Linings and Clutch Facings for Automotive and non-automotive parts having technical collaboration with Abex Corporation of U.S.A. The products manufactured by...
Tag this Judgment!Emjey Enterprises Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(61)ECC50
ORDERN.V. Balasubramaniam, J.1. The writ petitioner is a partnership firm. The petitioner is an importer of various goods including drugs as per the Imports and Exports Control Act, 947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Imports and Exports Control, Act') and Imports (Control) Order, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Imports Control Order'). An additional licence dated 24.6.1981 was issued in favour of one M/s. Abad Fisheries for the import of certain items specified therein in accordance with the import policy for 1980-81. An additional licence dated 16.7.1981 was issued in favour of M/s. Gujarat State Export Corporation for the import of items specified in accordance with the import policy, 1980-81. A subsidiary additional licence dated 23.9.1981 was issued in favour of M/s. Abad Fisheries for the import of items specified therein in accordance with the import policy 1980-81. Under the Import policy, 1980-81, Amoxycillin Trihydrate could be imported under the open general licence. ...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal and ors. Vs. Palaniammal (Deceased) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ127
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Since the issues involved in both the appeals are one and the same, the appeals may be disposed of by the following common judgment.2. Defendants in O.S. No. 531 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Madurai are the appellants in A.S. No. 258 of 1084. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 489 of 1980 on the file of the same court is the appellant in Transfer Appeal No. 837 of 1991.3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 489 of 1980 is briefly stated hereunder : According to the plaintiff, the suit properties originally belonged to one Koothan Servai, grand-father of the plaintiff, husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant. The said Koothan Servai had only two daughters, namely, 2nd defendant-Koothayi Ammal and one Vellai Ammal. Koothan Servai had no male issues. He had given Koothan Ammal and Vallai Ammal in marriage long ago and had given them sufficient cash and customary presents and married them well. Even during Koothan Servai's life time, the rela...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »