Chennai Court November 1998 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.
A.S. Mahaboob Huss Vs. Jayaraman and Six Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC643
ORDER1. The petitioner filed a petition under section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in M.R.C.O.P. No. 118 of 1981 on the file of the Rent Controller, Trichy to evict the respondents/tenants on the ground that the respondents have not paid the rent for 37 months from 1.2.1978.2. The non payment of rent is not disputed by the tenants. According to the tenants, they sought to send the rent by money order, which was refused and the tenants paid the property tax to the Municipality with respect to the property in question. In view of the above fact, the tenants case is that the non payment of the rent cannot be construed as wilful. It is also not disputed that the petitioner issued a notice dated 2.3.78 to the respondents.3. The Rent Controller in his order dated 30.10.1987 found that the tenants have defaulted the payment of rent which amounts to wilful default and on the basis of the aforesaid fact, ordered eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the ten...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. T.R. Nagoji Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR480(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Estate Duty Act is no longer in the statute book. The amount in respect of which much argument was advanced was also comparatively trivial. The Estate Duty Officer had engaged in a complex exercise for the purpose of ascertaining the exact amount of relief to which the accountable person was entitled under Section 50B of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Tribunal having held in favour of the accountable person, these references have been brought up before us.2. The three questions referred to us are :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the expression 'tax paid in respect of capital gains' under Section 50B of the Estate Duty Act relates to difference between the tax payable on the total income including the capital gains and the tax payable on the total income excluding the capital gains or the tax attributable to the capital gains by applying the average rate of income-tax to the amount of capital gains ?2. Whether, on the facts and circum...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. John Peter and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR561(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee was a salaried employee of a company and the accounting year ended on July 31 for each year. The asses-see's only income was the salary. He was assessed to tax on the salary by treating his previous year as the same as the previous year of his employer. He was so taxed for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. The Assessing Officer subsequently reopened the assessment on the ground that as the assessee had only salary income his previous year could only be the financial year under Section 3(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as Section 3(1)(b) of the Act as it then stood had no application to the assessee. It may be mentioned that for the assessment year 1976-77, originally, the assessee had not been subjected to tax as he was not in employment for the period up to November 30, 1975.2. The appeal by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was unsuccessful. The Tribunal on further appeal held that the Income-tax Officer...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vellore Electric Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR529(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a private electric company. Its undertaking vested with the State Government by reason of the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1973. After the unsuccessful attempt to challenge the validity of that Act in the High Court it had filed appeals before the Supreme Court which were pending during the relevant years. The assessment years are 1975-76 to 1979-80.2. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not carrying on any business and limited the salary paid to the employees of the assessee to ten per cent. and the audit fee was limited to fifteen per cent. That was affirmed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal, however, held that the assessee was carrying on business and was entitled to the deductions claimed by the assessee.3. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. : [1966]60ITR1(SC) , had an occasion to deal with the case of an electricity company which after...
Sarojini Muthusamy and ors. Vs. the District Registrar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ113
ORDERMeenakumari, J.1. This is a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in P.M. 51979/E3/89, dated 15.2.1991 confirming the order of the first respondent made in I.13/A1/89, dated 26.5.1989 and quash the order dated 15.2.1991 made therein and direct the respondents to register the dissolution deed dated 12.11.1986 and return the same to the petitioners after due registration.2. The case of the petitioners is that on 12.11.1986, the petitioners have taken a decision to dissolve the partnership firm Shree Laxmi Spinners' and entered into a deed of dissolution dated 12.11.1986. Their case is that they are the joint co-owners of the partnership property owned by the firm with an undivided interest along with other partners. The deed of dissolution has been entered into between the partners. The allocation of properties including the immoveable properties and liabilities of the firm was done under the deed of dissolution itself and the petitioners...
Thiagasambandham Pillai and anr. Vs. Savithiri Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ264
A. Raman, J.1. At the request of the counsel, both these appeals were heard together.2. S.A.No. 2303 of 1983: The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiffs case is as follows:The property is a house situate in Vanakkara St., Mannargudi Town, and it is the ancestral property of the 1st plaintiff and his elder brother Thangavelu. They mortgaged the said property usufractuarily in favour of one K.R. Manian, under a registered othi dated 4.2.1959, and received a loan of Rs. 1,750.00 and in lieu of interest the said Manian was put in possession thereof. The period fixed for redemption was to expire on 4.2.1968. The said K.N. Manian, whom as in possession as a mortgagee, had assigned the said mortgage to the first defendant under a registered othi on 29.7.1960. The first defendant in collusion with the first plaintiff's brother Thangavelu, got up a document styled as a sale deed in the name of the 2nd defendant as though there was a petition of the suit property between the first plainti...
Sundaram Vs. Vadivelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC92
ORDER1. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order of the Election Tribunal under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, made in Election Original Petition No.12 of 1996, on the file of Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, dated 22.6.1998.2. The Election Original Petition was filed challenging the election of the petitioner herein, as President of Vennavalkudi Panchayat.3. Reference to parties in this Order will be according to their rank in the Election Original Petition before the Election Tribunal below.4. Petitioner and respondents contested the election for post of President to the said Panchayat under different symbols. Election was held on 12.10.1996. According to the petitioner, wrong electoral roll was utilised by the presiding Officer. Though the petitioner and his agents protested against wrong electoral roll, their objection was of no use. Names of dead personswere not deleted from the electora...
Saravanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Special Commissioner and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC618
ORDERJudgement pronounced by N.K. Jain, J.1. The petitioner/detenu, has challenged the order of detention passed by the second respondent on 22.12.1997, labelling the petitioner as a bootlegger, with a view to preventing him from indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health.2. Though, the petitioner has raised so many grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his arguments on two grounds viz., (1) that there is abnormal delay in disposing of the representation and (2) that the Tamil version of the grounds of detention did not mention about the imminent possibility of moving the bail, which would vitiate the order of detention. He relied on the decision reported in Vinayagam v. The District Magistrate and Collector of N.A. Ambedkar District Vellore, 1995 (I) L.W. (Cri) 149.3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been ...
Vasantha Ammal and Others Vs. Narasimha Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC645; (1999)IIMLJ514
ORDER1. The issues that arise in the above three C.R.Ps. are common and they arise out of three I.As. filed in three different suits pending on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvannamalai.2. C.R.P. No. 325 of 1998 is filed against an order in I.A.No.297 of 1987 in O.S.No. 299 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvannamalai. The above suit is a suit for arrears of mesne profits filed by one Duraisamy Naidu.3. C.R.P. 326 of 1998 is filed against an order in I.A.No. 298 of 1987 in O.S.No.103 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai. The above suit is a suit for recovery of money filed by one Narasimhan against the said Duraisamy Naidu.4. C.R.P.No.327 of 1998 arises out of the order in I.A.No.683 of 1987 in O.S.No.829 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai and the suit is for partition and separate possession filed by one Sankaran.5. Duraisamy Naidu was the plaintiff in O.S.No.299 of 1978 and defendant in other two suits....
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. T.R. Jayaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR781(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The substantive question referred to us in this reference is as to whether Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is mandatory or directory.2. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) while upholding the validity of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules has held that (headnote): 'Rule 1D has to be followed in valuing each and every case of unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company). It is not a matter of choice or option. The rule-making authority has prescribed only one method for valuing the unquoted equity shares. If this method were not tobe followed, there is no other method prescribed by the rules. Where there is a rule prescribing the manner in which a particular property has to be valued, the authorities under the Act have to follow it. They cannot devise their own ways and means for valuing the assets.'3. The questions referred to us therefore have necessarily t...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »