Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
Appu Hotels Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Mad)520
ORDERBy the CourtThe petitioner has sought for a direction to the Appropriate Authority to grant to the petitioner a no objection certificate under section 269UL of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), in respect of the property comprising 2374/75000 undivided share of the land situated in No. 8, Estcort Road, Royapettah, Madras, bearing survey No. 904, R.S. 1279 and the office No. 3 in the first floor of the building known as 'Gokhale Bhavan' with a sale plinth area of 2374 square feet and pursuant to the agreement of sale entered into by the petitioner and Royapettah Benefit Fund Ltd., the second respondent dated 6-6-1990.2. The petitioner filed Form No. 37-I seeking a no objection certificate from the authority on 20-6-1990. The petitioner also produced several documents along with that form. The Appropriate Authority just before expiry of two months from that date, on 16-8-1990 addressed a long letter to the petitioner stating therein that according to t...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Rajah Sir M. A. Muthiah Chettiar (Decd.) (by Legal Representative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR505(Mad)
R. JAYASIMHA BABU J.-At the instance of the assessee, the following questions have, been referred to us. for our decision :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the applicant for rectification of the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act.2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT , could not be, followed in view of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in R. K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that rectification of their earlier order dated July 9, 1979, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT , would have the effect of escape...
Tag this Judgment!Purandara Vittal Vs. Mrs. Radha Bai Dr. S. E. Shivasenkar Rep. by Powe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC531; (1998)IIIMLJ367
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P.No. 3943 of 1983 on the file of the 10th Court of Small Causes, Madras (Rent Controller) and the appellant in R.C.A.No.246 of 1989 on the file of the 7th Court of Small Causes, Madras (Appellate Authority). The respondents are the petitioners in the rent control petition and the respondents in the appeal. Eviction was sought for in this rent control petition by the respondents on two grounds namely, wilful default in the payment of the rent and for different user. There were two connected rent control petitions namely R.C.O.P.No.3338 of 1984 between the same parties for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation(Residential) and demolition and reconstruction and R.C.O.P.No.4097 of 1984, for fixation of fair rent. In R.C.O.P.NO.3338 of 1984 the relief based on demolition and reconstruction was given up. The finding on the owner's occupation went against the landlord. In R.C.O.P.No.4097 of 1984, the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 507...
Tag this Judgment!Dr.V.K. Jayalakshmi Vs. Mrs. M.S. Meenakshi and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC761; (1998)IIIMLJ72
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3335 of 1986 in the file of the 11th Small Causes Judge (Rent Controller) Madras and the respondent in R.C.A.No.5 of 1990 on the file of the 8th Small Causes Judge (Appellate Authority) Madras. The respondents 1 and 2 are the petitioners in the rent control proceedings (landladies) and the appellants before the appellate authority. In this order, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the landladies and the tenant respectively.2. I heard Mr.N.Krishna Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and though the respondents had been served, yet they have not chosen either to engage a counsel to defend then here - or they were present before court. Under these circumstances, this revision is disposed of on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and after perusing the records.3. The landladies filed an application for eviction agains...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. P. Vijaya and Others Vs. M. Santhanaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC719; (1998)IIMLJ420
ORDER1. The defendants are the appellants in the second appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the defendants are the tenants in respect of the suit property and for possession etc. 3. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit property belonged to one Parthasarathy Naidu. He build up a thatched hut and let it out to the firstdefendant on a monthly rent of Rs.10. Thereafter, he filed R.C.O.P.No.497 of 1979, for eviction. The first defendant denied his title and the rent controller found that the denial was bona fide. But the first defendant did not deny the title of Parthasarathy Naidu to the land. On 12.3.1981, the plaintiff purchased the land from Parthasarathy Naidu. The plaintiff sent a notice calling upon the defendants to surrender vacant possession. Since they failed to do so, he filed the suit. 4. The defence was that the first defendant was the daughter of Parthasarathy Naidu. At the time of her marriage, Parthasarathy Naidu gifted the land to the first ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gurusami Vs. Dr.(Mrs) A.Jacob and Three Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC25; (1998)IIMLJ544
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Controller, Arani and the appellant in R.C.A.No.9 of 1991 on the file of the appellate authority (Sub-Court) Arani. The respondent is thepetitioner before the Rent Controller and the respondent before the appellate authority. She is the landlady. Though eviction was sought for on three grounds namely, wilful default in the payment of rent; putting the building to a different user and committing an act of waste, yet the order of eviction came to be passed only on two grounds namely different user and act of waste. That order of the Rent Controller was sustained by the appellate authority on both the grounds. Hence the present revision. 2. I heard Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. S. Francis Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to the learned senior counsel, the order of eviction passed in this case suffers from...
Tag this Judgment!Sadasivam Vs. M. Muthuswamy and Two Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC238; (1998)IIMLJ741
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the third respondent in I.P.No.5 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode and the third respondentin CMA No.37 of 1990 on the file of the District Judge, Erode. The first respondent is the petitioning creditor before the Insolvency Court and the appellant before the lower appellate Court. The second and third respondents herein are the respondents 1 and 2 before the Insolvency Court and respondents 1 and 2 before the lower appellate Court. In this order, the parties to this revision will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioning creditor and the respondents respectively as they were described before the Insolvency Court. The petitioning creditor filed I.P.No.5 of 1984 to adjudicate the first respondent before the Insolvency Court. That was dismissed on merits. On appeal by the petitioning creditor, the order of the Insolvency Court was set aside and thus the first respondent came to be adjudicated as an insolvent. Hence th...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniyappa Rice Mill and ors. Vs. P.A.A. Malayandi Chettiar (Decd.) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]101CompCas203(Mad)
S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The plaintiff, who lost before the trial court, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff filed the suit, O. S. No. 16 of 1979, on the file of the District Judge, Pudukkottai, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,125 due under two promissory notes, viz., exhibits A-1 and A-2, executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 10,000, respectively. The defendant had paid certain amounts and the last payment of Rs. 4,000 was sent on October 16, 1975, by demand draft and credited on October 18, 1975, and this will constitute a payment on account of the debt payable by the person liable to pay and hence under Section 19 of the new Limitation Act, the suit filed within three years from October 18, 1975, is within time. The date of the plaint is October 17, 1978, and the same was filed on October 18, 1978. The claim of the plaintiff is disputed by the first respondent herein, by filing a written statement. In the written statement, the first respondent herein has given the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)148CTR(Mad)567; [1999]238ITR328(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. As to whether on account of the failure of the amalgamating company to distribute the statutorily prescribed portion of the undistributed profits an order under Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be made against the amalgamated company is the question that has been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue. It is not in dispute that the charge for the additional tax is created by Section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as there is no other provision in the Act which creates a charge for tax on such undistributed profits. It is also not in dispute that the order was made within the period of limitation prescribed under the section.2. The amalgamated company is T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited, Madras, and the amalgamating company was Sundaram Motors Private Limited. An order of amalgamation was passed by this court in C.P. No. 52 of 1970, the petition having been filed by the two companies on which this court sanctioned a scheme of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sree Visalakshi Mills (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]98CompCas456(Mad); [1999]239ITR910(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The proviso to Section 204A(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, which was introduced by the amending Act 41 of 1974, with effect from February 1, 1975, provides that where any appointment of a person who had held the office of managing agent has been made as secretary, consultant, or adviser, or to any other office under it, by whatever name called in a company, no such appointment shall be continued by the company after the period of six months from the date of commencement of the amending Act, unless such appointment had been approved by the company in the general meeting, and by the Central Government before the expiry of that period. 2. The assessee-company had appointed one Narayanan Chettiar as its chairman prior to the coming into force of the amending Act but had failed to apply within the six months period to the Central Government for securing its approval of such appointment and consequently, approval was not granted by the Central Government, and therefo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »