Chennai Court February 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sree Visalakshi Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)176
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.:Proviso to s. 204A(1) of the Companies Act which was introduced by the amending Act 41 of 1974 with effect from 1-2-1975 provides that where any appointment of a person who had held the office of managing agent has been made as secretary, consultant, 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, therefore, he became dissentitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Comm1ssioner of Wealth Tax Vs. K.L. Varadarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)162
M. V. BALASUBRAMAM4M, J.The ass3essee is the owner of the property at No. 3, A.V. Palaniswamy Naidu Street, Coirnbatore. The property is a residential bungalow. We are concerned with t%c assessment years viz., 1972-73 and 1973-74. The original assessment under the WT Act for the asst. yr. 1972-73 was made on 28th Oct., 1972 on a net wealth of Rs. 4,40,700. For the asst. yr. 1973-74, the original assessment was made on 29th Jan., 1974 on a net wealth of Rs. 5,56,500. The WTO determino 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 asst. yr. 1972-73, the WTO referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer under s. 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 area of the property was 90 cents and on that basis, the value of the p...
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: (1998)148CTR(Mad)567
R. JAYASI1WHA BABU, J.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 s. 104 of the IT Act 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 additional tax is created by s. 104 of the IT 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 M/s TY. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Pvt. Ltd., Madras, and the amalgamating company was M/s Sundaram Motor Private Limited. An order of amalgamation was passed by this Court in CP No. 52 of 1970, petition having been filed by the two companies on which this Court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement and amalgamation that had been p...
Tag this Judgment!A. Velliangiri (Deceased) and 3 Others Vs. M/S. Ram Bahadur Takur (P)l ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC436; (1998)IIMLJ298
ORDER1. The plaintiff in the suit C.S.No. 237 of 1986 has filed this appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.1989 made in application No. 1818 of 1987 revoking the leave granted holding that this Court, on the original side, has no jurisdiction to try the suit by virtue of clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Duringthe pendency of the appeal, the appellant died. Hence his Legal Representatives are brought on record.2. In this Judgment of ours, we will refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the suit for convenience.3. In the suit, the plaintiff prayed for a Judgment and decree for specific performance against the defendants 1 and 4 directing the 1st defendant and 4th defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, transferring and conveying the property, more fully described in the Schedule hereunder known as Travancore Tea Estates Company Limited together with all buildings, factories, plantations, standing timbers and other machineries, plants erected therein, transpor...
Tag this Judgment!T. Angappa thevar Vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC506
ORDER1. Heard. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration dated 3.12.1988, dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act'.) against an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate dated 21.4.1988, refusing the grant of licence to the petitioner for possessing S.B.B.L. Gun.2. It seems that the petitioner had applied for such licence in terms of Section 13 of the Act, presumably on the ground that he was having substantial agricultural properties of about 58 acres and that he was an agriculturist and more than 50 ladies worked in his fields. In short, the licence was sought for the self protection. The first authority, namely, the second respondent herein, invited reports from various authorities like Tahsildar, District Forest Officer and the Superintendent of Police and after holding the enquiry, rejected the application f...
Tag this Judgment!Kalavathi Vs. Chitra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC529; (1998)IIMLJ508
ORDER1. Aggrieved against the order in I.A.No.2 of 1997 in O.S.No.1434 of 1990 on the file of District Munsif, Dindugul, the plaintiff has filed the present revision. He has filed I.A.No.2 of 1997 for amendment of the plaint. By the impugned order dated 18.1.97, the learned District Munsif dismissed the said petition, against which the petitioner has filed the present revision.2. Originally the plaintiff has filed O.S.1434 of 1990 praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from constructing any lavatory in the suit property. The said suit was filed in the year 1990. It is seen that in the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant on 1.11.96 he has disputedthe claim of the plaintiff. In such circumstance, the petitioner herein has filed the present I.A.No.2 of 1997 in the said suit for amendment of the plaint, namely, instead of the prayer for permanent injuction, she sought for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Ravi and Another Vs. Indian Bank, Alwarpet Branch, Chennai-18 an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: [1999]96CompCas272(Mad); 1998(1)CTC555
ORDER1. The petitioners herein are seeking for quashing the order of respondent No.2 passed in O.A.No.47 of 1996 dated 31.7.1997. Respondent No.l herein filed an Original Application in O.A.No.47 of 1996 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai against the petitioners for recovery of total sum of Rs.1,20,74,804, i.e. Rs.16,71,823 under Medium Term Lone, Rs.44.40,447 under Secured Loan facility, Rs.30,47,136 under the Secured Loan and Rs.29,15,398 with interest at 25.25% per annum for all the loans with quarterl rests from the date of application till the date of realisation and for the sale of 'A' Schedule immovable property and with costs. Petitioner No.2 is the sister of petitioner No.1, who has guaranteed the repayment of advance granted to her brother, the petitioner No.1. It is the case of the Bank before the Tribunal that they have acknowledged their liability and confirmed the balance due, in their letters dated 21.12.93, 29.1.94 respectively and didnot settle the loan dues...
Tag this Judgment!The Director of Medical Education, Chennai-5 and Three Others Vs. Dr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC244; (1998)IIIMLJ520
ORDER1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.4.1997, insofar as it related to WP No.2317 of 1997, which came to be disposed along with two other Writ Petitions in common, where under the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition and declaring paragraph 4 in Clause VI of the Prospectus relating to the Admission to Postgraduate Diploma/Degree/MDS Courses for the year 1997-98 unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, directed the appellants, who are respondents in the writ petition, to proceed with the further selection insofar as it related to Service candidates without taking into consideration the said paragraph. The said paragraph, which was held to be bad by the learned single Judge, reads as follows:-'Service candidates should send their applications through proper channelwith forwarding authority's remarks, if any disciplinary proceedings arepending against them, service cand...
Tag this Judgment!V.H. Patel Vs. P.M. Patel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC479; (1998)IIIMLJ748
ORDER1. The revision petitioner is the petitioner in E.A.No.2258 of 1989 inE.P.No.1883 of 1988 in O.S.No.9220 of 1984 on the file of IX AssistantJudge, City Civil Court, Madras. The respondent in this revision is therespondent in the above Execution Application, the decree holder/petitioner inthe Execution petition and the plaintiff in the abovereferred to suit. Therevision petitioner's application in the abovementioned Execution Applicationwas dismissed. The prayer in that Application, which was filed under Section47 of the Code of Civil procedure, is extracted herein:'Having regard to the facts and circumstances it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enquire into the liability or otherwise of the petitioner to pay class 2 of the decree dated 21.7.87 regarding payment ofdamages of the petitioner for the machineries from 16.9.87 and pass appropriate and necessary orders in this behalf.It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to re-dep...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K. Palaniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR719(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The following questions of law have been referred to .us in pursuance of the directions of this court in T. C. P. No. 255 of 1983, dated November 1, 1983 :'1. Whether having regard to the provision in Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that the cash credit of Rs. 50,000 entered in the books of the assessee on December 29, 1975, is not assessable in the assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 is based on valid materials and sustainable in law ?2. Whether the assessee's statement in a proceeding under a different statute that the aforesaid credit represents undisclosed profits of some earlier years has overriding' effect and must be taken as constituting a satisfactory explanation for the source thereof, within the meaning of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is an individual and the assessment year with which we are concerned is 1976-77, the relevant previous year ended on April 15, 1976. Th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »