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.
Mohamed Ali and ors. Vs. Khader and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ183
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in A.S.No. 132 of 1983 in partly reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Cuddalore, in O.S.No. 547 of 1979. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the legal representatives of the first plaintiff are the appellants in the above second appeal.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties situate in Kurinjipadi village, originally belonged to the joint family of one Arumugha Asari and his sons who were in enjoyment of the same till they sold it to the father of the plaintiffs and the senior paternal uncle of plaintiffs under sale deed dated 5.5.1922. But due to clerical mistake the property was wrongly given in the description of the pro...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tiam House Service Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR695(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the medical expenditure to the extent of Rs. 2,54,994 incurred on an employee should be allowed as a valid business expenditure in the hands of the assessee under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the medical expenditure to the extent of Rs. 2,54,994 incurred on an employee could not be considered to be a perquisite and, therefore, could not be disallowed under Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. They arose out of the assessment of the respondent company in which the public are not substantially interested, under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1986-87. During the assessment year, the assessee purchased ai...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Standard Polygraph Machines Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR788(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is :'Whether, the sum of Rs. 80,000 out of Rs. 5,05,682 being the income-tax payable by the non-resident is entitled to be treated as cost of the plant and machinery, thus becoming eligible for depreciation and investment allowance ?'2. The assessment year is 1981-82. The assessee claimed that the amount of income-tax paid by the assessee in respect of the consideration paid by the assessee to the foreign collaborator should also form part of the actual costof the plant and machinery on which depreciation and investment allowance should be allowed. That claim was accepted by the Income-tax Officer, but negatived by the Commissioner in suo motu revision under Section 265 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal has held that the amount of tax paid by the assessee should be regarded as liability of the foreign collaborator which the assessee had undertaken to pay as per the agreement entered into with th...
T. Michael Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ338
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration that St. Antony's Elementary (Primary) School in Nelakarisalkulam, Rayagiri Post, Sankarankoil Taluk, Tirunelveli District was a minority institution within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Government from enforcing several provisions of the said Act and the Rules to the said school. The defendant/ the respondent herein resisted the suit stating that the plaintiff/appellant did not establish that it was a minority institution and that merely because the school was started by a Christian it would not become a minority institution.2. The trial court, on consideration of the evidence of the plaintiff, who was examined as P. W. 1 and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9 which marked through him, decreed the suit as prayed for.3. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 7.12.1...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Yennarkay Rajaratnam Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (2000)158CTR(Mad)274
R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.:Two questions have been referred to us. The assessment years are 1978-79 to 1981-82. The questions referred to us are :(1) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee's claim for exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act was riot hit by s. 13(1)(bb) of the Act and consequently its income was exempt under section 11 '(2) Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the income derived by the assessee from exploitation of trade-mark was not a business activity for the purpose of s. 13(1)(bb) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'2. The assessee is a charitable trust constituted under a deed of trust dt. 13th March, 1955. The author of the trust, Yennarkay Rajarathnam, was the owner of the trade-mark 'Sun Flower' and 'Kanthi Flower', both of which were registered trade-marks, The primary object of the trust was to pay 90 per cent of the income to Yennarkay Rajarathnam Welfare Centre, wh...
Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax Vs. Babulal Khinchand Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR790(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu J.The question referred to us at the instance of the revenue is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the trust is a valid charitable trust and in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to redo the assessments in the light of the provisions of section 2 1(1) read with section 2 IA of the Wealthtax Act, 1957 ?'The trust referred to is one which was created under the deed dated October 10, 1986. The trust deed has not been produced before us. It is agreed by learned counsel for the parties that the crucial part of the trust deed relevant for the purposes of this case is the part that there has been set out in the Tribunal's order. That part reads thus :'If, however, the settlor leaves no wife or children, the trust properties shall be applied for such charitable purpose as may be decided upon by the trustees.'The Tribunal has held that the trust is created when the settlor leaves no wife or children as ha...
G. Ganesamoorthy Vs. the Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ532
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking to issue a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for records from the respondent relating to the dispute in I.D.No. 378 of 1986 and quash the same and direct the second respondent, the Management of Sri Balu Transport, Pattukottai, to reinstate him in service with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.2. The facts that are required for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:The petitioner joined as a conductor on 1.1.1982 in the services of the second respondent. On 1.3.1985, he was asked to work in the third respondent, since the third respondent is the sister concern of the second respondent. On 5.8.1985, when he was on duty in the Bus No. TNO. 5227 running between Kumbakonam and Pattukottai, the Checking Inspectors stopped the bus and checked. After checking, it was found that out of 69 passengers tickets were issued only to 64 pass...
Selvamurthy Vs. Thirupura Sundari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ734
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. The first respondent in marriage O.P.No. 10 of 1997 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry is the revision petitioner. The revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.2. The divorce petition was filed by the wife against her husband for dissolving the marriage on various grounds. It is alleged in the petition that husband was ill-treating wife both physically and mentally and that he is also living an adulterous life. It is also said that her husband had married the second respondent in the petition.3. Counter statement was filed by the husband. Application for divorce was filed by end of 1996 and was numbered as 1 of 1997 on the file of Family Court, Pondicherry.4. I.A.No. 154 of 1998 was also filed by the wife under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. According to her, she has no independent source of income and that she is living with her parents. It is also said that husband is getting not less than Rs. 30,000 per month and he is not contr...
Rajamani Vs. Seeralan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: (1999)2MLJ13
A. Ramamurthi, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.2. The case in brief is as follows:The defendant executed a pronote on 16.2.1971 for a sum of Rs. 2,600 undertaking to pay interest at 12% per annum on demand. The defendant is an agriculturist and, as such, interest in claimed at 9% per annum. The defendant has properties worth more than Rs. 20,000 and his annual income is also more than Rs. 5,000 and, as such, he is not entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. The suit could not be filed because of the moratorium period between 16.2.1977 and 13.6.1979. The suit is not barred by time.3. The defendant resisted the suit, stating that the document is not Supported by consideration. The defendant, his father and brother received a sum of Rs. 4,000 from one Rajavelu on 5.8.1975 and executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage. Though the deed was styled as a bogiam, the defendant did not surrender possession and continued to enjoy the land. The mortgagee wanted only ...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tian House Service Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1998
Reported in: [2000]109TAXMAN82(Mad)
ORDERJayasimha Babu, J.The following two questions have been referred to us at the instance of the revenue:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the medical expenditure to the extent of Rs. 2,54,994 incurred on an employee should be allowed as a valid business expenditure in the hands of the assessee under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the medical expenditure to the extent of Rs. 2,54,994 incurred on an employee could not be considered to be a perquisite and, therefore, could not be disallowed under section 40A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'They arose out of the assessment of the respondent-company in which the public are not substantially interested, under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 1986-87. During the assessment year, the asse...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »