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. Fathima Fareedunnissa Vs. T.A.H. Zubaida Ummal and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC462; (1999)IMLJ437
ORDER1. The petitioner/plaintiff in both the revisions filed the suit in O.S.No.286 of 1978, on the file of Sub-Court, Pondicherry on 7.10.1978 for dissolution of the partnership firm. The trial court decreed the suit for dissolution of the firm from 7.10.1978 and ordered taking of accounts in compliance with the Order 20, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, till the date of dissolution and rejected the same with respect to the other reliefs prayed for in the plaint, by passing a preliminary decree dated 19.9.1988. The plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No. 215 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The said appeal was allowed on 8.8.1989 and aggrieved against that,on the file of Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. the defendants filed second appeal which is pending. In the judgment dated 8.8.1989 it washeld that the partnership firm stands dissolved from 15.11.1978, and one Mr. Narasimhan, Advocate had been appointed as Commissioner to take account from 1.5.19...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Crescent Films (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: [2001]248ITR670(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu , J. 1. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the advance which has been held to be a trading loss, though made in the course of business was not made in the course of money-lending business and, therefore, the money so advanced has only to be regarded as a further advance of capital and not an advance which can be regarded as a trading transaction.2. The assessee which carries on the business of distribution of films had paid Rs. 7,50,000 to the producer for society distribution rights for a film under production. The producer having run into difficulty and finding himself in a situation where he would be unable to complete the film requested the assessee to lend a sum of Rs. 1,10,000 which sum was to be dealt with in a manner different from the manner in which the sum of Rs. 7,50,000 paid earlier as consideration for the distribution rights of the film was to be treated. These sums were ultimately not repaid to the assessee and the assessee claimed it as a ...
Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Vs. Transocean Bulk Carriers Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)IMLJ316
C. Shivappa, J.1. The question for consideration in this civil miscellaneous petitionis whether the petitioner is a proper and necessary party and entitled for impleading at the appellate stage?2. The applicant is seeking for impleading as 7th additional respondent in O.S.A. No. 131 of 1998.3. O.S.A. No. 131 of 1998 is against the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in C.S. No. 1151 of 1995. The suit was recovery of Rs. 1,22,00,000/- in respect of the alleged return of two cheques issued by the respondent No. 1/ defendant in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent No. 6, namely, M/s. Scotts Engineering, got impleaded and subsequently the Supreme Court by order dated 16-11-1995 filed by respondent No. 6, appointed the official Receiver to act as Receiver for carrying out the work of ship breaking with the respondent No. 6. The amount that may be realised by sale should be deposited up to the maximum of Rs. 1 crore. The respondent No. 6 complied with the order...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Attur Thuluva Vellalar Sangam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR774(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us is as to whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption provided under Section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1974-75. It was submitted by counsel at the Bar that for the subsequent years, the Wealth-tax Officer has not denied exemption provided for under Section 5(1)(i) of the said Act to the assessee. The assessee is a trust whose objects are wide ranging including imparting of education, running' free library, to remove differences among people, and to consolidate different sects and raise the status of humanity and also the advancement of general objects of public utility. That is what has been held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noticed the fact that one of the activities of the trust was to settle disputes and quarrels among members, but that activity was not its primary activity. It also noticed the fact that the conducting chits and c...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sivanandha Steels Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR770(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The assessee entered into an agreement with H.M.T. (International) Ltd., Australia, which is the wholly owned subsidiary of H. M. T. Limited, Bangalore, for the territory of Australia for the products manufactured by the assessee, namely, steel castings of all descriptions. The agent during the currency of the agreement was required to use its best endeavours to promote the sale of the products of the assessee by securing orders for the purpose from the parties in Australia at such prices and on such terms as to delivery, warranty, etc., as mutually agreed upon from time to time. The agent was also required to endeavour his best to market, in the territory to Australia the products offered by the assessee for mutual benefit. Both parties were to advise each other over the market situation, competitors, development, improvement, priority in execution of orders booked, etc.2. The agent maintained an office in Australia and it has been stated in the agreement that ...
T. Palanisamy Gounder Vs. A.V.G. Ponnusamy Chettiar and Sons, by Partn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ459
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner/landlord who got an order of eviction before the Rent Controller and failed before the appellate authority, has filed the above revision.2. The landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No. 5 of 1989 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Erode under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vii), 10(3)(iii)and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the respondents/tenants. According to him, the demised property originally belonged to one S. Gouthaman and it was leased out to the second respondent therein for a monthly rent of Rs. 650, and the second respondent therein was carrying on business in the said premises as a shroff merchant. Respondents 2 to 4 herein are his sons, who formed themselves into a partnership under the name and style of A.V.G. Ponnuswany Chettiar and Sons. According to the landlord, he purchased the property in question on 15.7.1988 under a registered sale deed. On 18.7.1988 he sent...
The Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Represented by Its Chief Manager, Bhagw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ316
ORDERC. Shivappa, J.1. The question for consideration in this civil miscellaneous petition is whether the petitioner is a proper and necessary party and entitled for impleading at the appellate stage?2. The applicant is seeking for impleading as 7th additional respondent in O.S.A. No. 131 of 1998.3. O.S.A. No. 131 of 1998 is against the judgment and decree of the trial court passed in C.S. No. 1151 of 1995. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 1,22,00,000 in respect of the alleged return of two cheques issued by the respondent No. 1/defendant in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent No. 6, namely, M/s. scotts Engineering, got impleaded and subsequently the Supreme Court by order dated 16.11.1995 filed by respondent No. 6, appointed the Official Receiver to act as Receiver for carrying out the work of ship breaking with the respondent No. 6. The amount that may be realised by sale should be deposited upto the maximum of Rs. 1 crore. The respondent No. 6 complied with the...
Avvai Home Vs. Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Devasthanam, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ355
C. Shivappa, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 31.3.1998 passed on the Application No. 3710 of 1997 in C.S.No. 66 of 1990 on the Original Side of this Court. Along with that he had also filed an application seeking to set aside an order passed exparte, dated 2.3.1993 in C.S.No. 66 of 1990, which is still pending in the original side.2. The learned Counsel who appeared for the appellant herein, has sworn to an affidavit setting out the causes for delay. He has stated that summons were served on the appellant in the year 1990 and the case was entrusted to his office clerk Mr. Venugopal for filing vakalat in the Registry. Thereafter, he was Under the impression that vakalat had already been filed. But, on 2nd November, 1995, while clearing up the papers in his office, it was found that vakalat had not been filed. Thereafter, the suit register was verified and vakalat was filed on 17.11.1995.3. Since the suit register did not disclose any order having been p...
A. Fathima Fareedunnissa Vs. T.A.H. Zubaida Ummal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ437
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The petitioner/plaintiff in both the revisions filed the suit in O.S.No. 286 of 1978, on the file of Sub Court, Pondicherry on 7.16.1978 for dissolution of the partnership firm. The trial court decreed the suit for dissolution of the firm from 7.10.1978 and ordered taking of accounts in compliance with the Order 20, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, till the date of dissolution and rejected the same with respect to the other reliefs prayed for in the plaint, by passing a preliminary decree dated 19.9.1988. The plaintiff filed appeal in A.S.No. 215 of 1988 on the file of Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The said appeal was allowed on 8.8.1989 and aggrieved against that, the defendants filed second appeal which is pending. In the judgment dated 8.8.1989 it was held that the partnership firm stands dissolved from 15.11.1978 and one Mr. Narasimhan, Advocate had been appointed as Commissioner to take account from 1.5.1971 to 15.11.1978. The lower court...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jayalalitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR652(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us has referred to the wrong statutory provision. The provision with which we are really concerned with is Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. That provision reads as under : '2. (e) 'assets' includes property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include,--... (2) in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1970, or any subsequent assessment year but before the 1st day of April, 1993--. ... (ii) a right to any annuity (not being an annuity purchased by the assessee or purchased by any other person in pursuance of a contract with the assessee) in any case where the terms and conditions relating thereto preclude the commutation of any portion thereof into a lump sum grant;' 2. The words in brackets in the provision were introduced by the Finance Act, 1974, with effect from April 1, 1975. 3. The assessment years with respect to which the question has arisen and the references ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »