Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
P.A. Anbu Anandan Vs. D. Sivakumari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)IIMLJ406
ORDERS.M. Abdul Wahab, J. 1. These two civil revision petitions arise out of a common order dated 29-3-1996 in I.A. No. 345 of 1992 in H.M.O.P. No. 16 of 1992 and I.A. No. 1.179 of 1995 in O.S. No. 1297 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.2. The aforesaid two petitions were filed by the husband against the wife. First one is for sending the respondent for medical examination to find out whether she remained virgin, while the other one was for direction against her to produce the letters written by the petitioner to her,3. The short facts leading to this peculiar type of petitions are as follows: The petitioner was a divorcee and after he contracted the marriage again with the respondent on 14-12-1991 and the same was registered on 16-12-1991. Even though they lived together for some time happily at Madras, the respondent went away from the matrimonial home. Hence, he has filed HMOP No. 16 of 1992 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dr. Miss Pauline E. King
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR300(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. For the four assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78, the income of the assessee was grossed up and tax levied thereon by the Income-tax Officer. That mode of calculation was found to be erroneous by the Tribunal. It held that there was no material before the authority from which it could be said that the salary paid to the assessee who was a nurse employed by the American Madura Mission of the United Church Board for World Ministries and who had served at the Christian Medical College Hospital at Vellore had been granted tax-free income by her employers. The assessee was a national of the United States and a nurse by profession. She had filed returns for the years 1974-78 showing the income of Rs. 34,653 for the assessment year 1974-75, Rs. 40,508 for the assessment year 1975-76, Rs. 67,741 for the assessment year 1976-77 and Rs. 48,035 for the assessment year 1977-78. At the time of filing the return, the amount of tax payable on the income aforementioned is, viz....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B. Vijayakumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR728(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The common question referred in these tax cases which relate to the three assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73 is, 'as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessments made under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1972-73 are invalid in law and should therefore be cancelled ?'2. The reassessment for those years came to be made on the basis of a report given by the audit party to the Assessing Officer, and in the order of reassessment made on October 30, 1976, the Wealth-tax Officer has stated, inter alia, in the assessment order, that 'at the time of the audit of the record, the Revenue audit pointed out the resultant inadequacy in the intrinsic value of the unquoted shares due to excess deduction of liability over and above what is contemplated under Explanation II(ii)(e) of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957'.3. The inadequacy in the intrinsic value was state...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Essar Bulk Carriers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR186(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue in respect of the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to the relief under Section 80HH in respect of its business which also comprised of business activities other than manufacturing one 2. The Tribunal has held that the assessee had established its manufacturing business after December 31, 1970, and that the assessee had maintained necessary profit and loss account from which relief to be computed under Section 80HH was ascertainable. The Tribunal after observing that the only reason as to why the Income-tax Officer did not grant relief to the assessee, was that the ascertainment of income from the manufacturing and other activities was not possible the assessee being also engaged in construction activity and the profit and loss being one for both...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. K.L. Varadaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: [1999]238ITR440(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The assessee is the owner of the property at No. 3. A. V. Palaniswamy Naidu Street, Coimbatore. The property is a residential bungalow. We are concerned with two assessment years, viz., 1972-73 and 1973-74. The original assessment under the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73 was made on October 28, 1972, on a net wealth of Rs. 4,40,700. For the assessment year 1973-74, the original assessment was made on January 29, 1974, on a net wealth of Rs. 5,56,500. The Wealth-tax Officer determined the value of the said property in the original assessment at Rs. 2,22,048 on the basis of the registered valuer's report. Subsequent to the completion of the original assessment for the assessment year 1972-73, the Wealth-tax Officer referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer under Section 16A of the Act to determine the value of the property who determined the property's value at Rs. 4,65,000. According to the Departmental Valuation Officer, the ar...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sadasivam Vs. Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Dte
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: 1999(105)ELT269(Mad)
ORDERS.M. Sidickk, J.1. This is an application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to set aside the order dated 22-12-1997 in Crl. M.P. No. 989 of 1997 in C.C. No. 881/93 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan (E.O. II) Egmore, Madras.2. The petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 309 of Cr. P.C. in Crl. M.P. No. 907/97 in C.C. No. 881/93 before the lower Court by stating as follows :-'The petitioner/accused earlier filed an application for adjournment on producing the stay order dated 20-11-1997. This Hon'ble Court has dismissed the said application. The petitioner/accused wants to get clarification of the position and effect of the stay order. Hence the matter may be adjourned to some other date. Hence it is just and necessary to adjourn the above case to some other date to cross-examine the P.W. 1 examined in the case today.Hence it is just and necessary to adjourn the above case for cross examining the Witness P.W. 1 and thus render jus...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dr. (Miss) Pauline E. King
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)153CTR(Mad)559
R. JAYPSMHA BAB U, J.:For the four asst. yrs. 1974-75 to 1977-78, the income of the assessee was grossed up and taxed levied thereon by the ITO. The mode of calculation was found to be erroneous by the Tribunal. It held that there was no material before the authority from which it could be said that the salary paid to the assessee who was a nurse employed by the American Madura Mission of the United Church Board for World Ministries and who had served at the Christian Medical College Hospital at Vellore had been granted tax-free income by her employers. The assessee was a national of United States and a nurse by profession. She had filed returns for the years 1974-78 showing the income of Rs. 34,653 for the asst. yr. 1974-75, Rs. 40,508 for the asst. yr. 1975-76, Rs. 67,741 for the asst. yr. 1975-76 and Rs. 48,035 for the asst. yr. 1977-78. At the time of filing the return the amount of tax payable on the income aforementioned is viz., Rs. 9,574, Rs. 12,082, Rs. 17,450 and Rs. 19,883 w...
Tag this Judgment!Mangayarkarasi Vs. Veerappan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ629
K. Sampath, J.1. The plaintiff who lost before both the courts below is the appellant. She filed suit O.S.No.406 of 1980 before the District Munsif's Court, Pattukottai, for permanent injunction on the following averments:The suit property of an extent of 12 cents in S.No.86/13 in Thuravikkadu Village with 13 coconut trees and 1 jack fruit tree, which was fenced on three sides, originally belonged to one Saroja from whom she bought it on 20.7.1997 under Ex.A-1. She was in possession eversince. The 15 cents immediately north of the suit property belonged to her late husband and she was in possession of that property also. The total extent of the suit survey number was 59 cents. The balance extent of 32 cents was in the possession of the first respondent. When she attempted to erect granite and barbed wire fencing, respondents 1 to 3 objected and wanted the suit properties to be sold to them. Since the appellant refused, the respondents got enraged and damaged the boundary stones in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. P. Vijaya and anr. Vs. M. Santhanaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ420
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. 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 built up a thatched hut and let it out to the first defendant 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 lan...
Tag this Judgment!A. Gurusami Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) A. Jacob (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ544
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. 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 the petitioner 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. The order of the Rent Controller was sustained by the appellate authority of 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 passes ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »