Chennai Court February 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.
Rt. Rev. Casmir Gnanadickam Archbishop of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ501
Kanakaraj, J.1. The appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge dismissing a petition for the issue of a succession certificate in respect of a Christian Priest's outstandings in the bank. The petition was filed by the appellant, who claims to be the superior in charge of the order in which the deceased was admitted as a priest. The only ground on which the learned single Judge has rejected the petition is that Section 29(1) of the Indian Succession Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' is not a bar under the circumstances of the case for the applicability of Part V of the Act. For this purpose the learned single Judge has relied on the judgment of Ismail, J., as he then was in Solomon v. Muthiah : (1974)1MLJ53 .2. We are of the opinion that the question of Part V and the question of succession to the estate of the deceased need not be gone into and a finding rendered while considering the issue of a certificate under Part X of the Act. Before referring to the r...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chemicals and Plastics India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)145CTR(Mad)294
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. :In compliance with the directions of this Court dt. 14th March, 1989, the Tribunal referred the following question of law for our consideration under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on the maintenance of the guest house and the depreciation on the building used as a guest house should be allowed as a deduction ?'2. The assessee is a public limited company. The assessment year involved is 1978-79. The assessee maintained a guest house at Mettur and incurred certain expenditure amounting to Rs. 30,528 and also claimed depreciation of Rs. 8,999 in computing the income of the previous year ended 31st March, 1978 relevant to the asst. yr. 1978-79. The ITO disallowed the claim of the assessee with reference to both the amounts namely, the expenditure as well as the claim of depreciation. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) accepted...
P. Haridoss Vs. N. Subbayya Pillai and 3 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC453; (1998)IIMLJ343
ORDER1. The third defendant in O.S.No.424 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant in thisCourt. 2. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that Survey No.5842 of Aloor Village consisted of two letters, namely, 'A' letter having an extent of 60 cents and 'B' letter having 95 cents. The total extent of one acre 55 cents lies together as a single property. It is a joint family property and plaintiff is in possession of 'A' letter. 'B' letter is a trust property. The plaintiff is performing ceremonies attached to the trust. The plaintiff was in Indian Army. He leasedout the suit property to one Ayyappan Nair, a friend of the first defendant. He constructed a tea. shop and he is running the business. Second and third defendants have no right or possession over the suit property. Since they attempted to trespass into the suit property, the suit was filed. 4. Defendants 1 to 3 have filed a...
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Anna Staff Union, Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC564
ORDER1. By consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent states on instructions that no work relief is granted to any of the unions operating in the respondent's corporation. The main grievance of the petitioners was that the benefit given to some other unions had been denied to it. That grievance cannot survive any longer.2. On the larger questions of right to obtain work relief, this Court has time and again stated that no such right can be claimed from the employer on the ground that the workmen have become office bearers of trade unions. The workmen are employed in any industries to perform work and not to absent themselves and claim benefits despite no work having been performed by them. Working for their union is not the same thing as work in the industry to contribute to the total production, and performing the duty attached to the post of which the person is appointed.3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. P.R. Ramaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR617(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1975-76, the assessee set apart a sum of Rs. 80,000 each for his two minor daughters. The amount set apart, viz., Rs. 1,60,000, as per the entries in the books of account was intended for the education as well as the marriage expenses of his minor daughters. The Gift-tax Officer allowed exemption of Rs. 40,000 for each of the daughters and brought to tax the balance of the sum of Rs. 80,000. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on appeal, held that the entire amount set apart should be allowed as exemption under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. The Department went on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the entire amount set apart should be allowed as exempt under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. The Tribunal also observed that the sum of Rs. 80,000 set apart for each daughter is sufficient only fo...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR57(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. In pursuance of the direction of this court the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following question of law for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in partially setting aside the assessment of the Income-tax Officer for considering the question of status ?'2. The assessee is a company and it was assessed for the assessment year 1974-75 in the status of a company in which the public are not substantially interested. The assessee went on appeal against the order of assessment to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) challenging the part of the order holding that the assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested and in the appeal filed, it challenged certain other disallowances made in the computation of its income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) granted r...
Greaves Chitram Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: [2003]133STC364(Mad)
ORDERJanarthanam, J. 1. This revision, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the order dated August 12, 1994 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madras-104 (for short 'Tribunal') and made in T.A. No. 531 of 1992 relating to the assessment year 1986-87 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956) (for short 'CSTA').2. The assessee--Tvl. Greaves Chitram Limited, having their place of business at 38, Main Road, Royapuram, Madras-13 is coming within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer, Royapuram assessment circle.3. The assessee-dealers reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 3,97,97,938.93 and Rs. 2,97,35,987.39 respectively as per the return in form-I for the assessment year 1986-87 under CSTA. Accounts were called for and checked by this assessing officer, before ever the order of assessment was made. In the process of checking accounts, the assessing officer found that the exemption claimed in respect of transport ...
The Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Represented by Its Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ304
ORDERJagadeesan, J.1. The petitioner is the second defendant in O.S.No. 294 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai who is only a garnishee. The first respondent filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,555.28 from the second respondent herein. Pending the suit, the first respondent obtained an Order of attachment of a sum of Rs. 22,000 due to the second respondent herein, lying in the hands of the petitioner. In the garnishee application, notice was Order ed to the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not represent, the Order of attachment was made absolute on 29.8.1986. Subsequently the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount in court by Order dated 23.12.1986 which was not complied with. Thereafter the suit was decreed and the first respondent filed E.P.No. 80 of 1988 seeking a direction, directing the petitioner herein to deposit the decree amount from out of the attached amount, lying with the petitioner. The said petition was dismissed by the Executing Cour...
Nanjappan Vs. Cauvery Gounder and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC158; (1998)IMLJ699
ORDER1. The above C.M.S.A. is directed against the order passed inC.M.A.NO. 10 of 1985, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,Salem.2. The appellant herein was adjudicated as insolvent in I.P.No.3 of 1980. The properties of the appellant were brought to sale by the Official Receiver, who is the II respondent herein, on the basis of the details given by one of the creditors. After publication of proclamation of sale on 31.3.1981, the second respondent conducted the sale of the properties of the insolvent on 25.8.1981 in which items 1 and 3 of the petition schedule properties were sold. The first respondent, one of the creditors of the insolvent, was the successful bidder. The insolvent filed an application in I.A.No. 295 of 1981 for setting aside the sale held by the second respondent. The lower court dismissed thesame on the ground that the petition was barred by limitation. As against the said order, the appellant filed appeal in C.M.A.No.22 of 1983 on the file of th...
Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President, All India Janatha Party, No. 1, Papa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC300
ORDER1. The petitioner herein has filed this petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the issuance of process inter alia contending that it is the Magistrate who is alone vested with the power to take cognizance of the offence and under no circumstance the Sessions Court can usurp this power and order the Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process.2. The learned counsel for the respondent questioned the maintainability of the revision petition and tried to justify the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the Magistrate to take cognizance and to issue process to the petitioner herein.3. It is not appropriate to direct that the complaint should be restored to file. The proper order is to direct further enquiry and direct the Magistrate to use his discretion once more if he thinks it proper to do so. In an identical situation, this Court in Nanjappa v. Periakkal, : AIR1951Mad772 , while setting aside Sessions Judge, directed charge to be fr...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »