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.
Somasundaram Chettiar and Others Vs. Balasubramanian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC626; (1998)IIMLJ562
ORDER1. The impugned order dated 27.2.1997 in I.A.No.1059 of 1996 in O.S.No.172 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Virudhunagar, dismissing the application for impleading the second petitioner herein, is challenged before this Court in this revision.2. The respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, the first petitioner herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property, claiming himself as the adopted son of Gurusamy Chettiar and Guruvammal. The defendant, the first petitioner herein disputed the alleged adoption and contended that the said Guruvammal executed a Will on 21.2.1985 in favour of one Dhanalakshmi Ammal, who is the second petitioner herein and that after the death of the said Guruvammal, the second petitioner herein handed over the properties to the possession of the first petitioner after entering into an agreement of sale. During the course of trial, the first petitioner herein filed the applica...
A. Nagappan and 8 Others Vs. M/S. Mc. Adams Chemicals Manufacturing Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC694; (1998)IIMLJ435
ORDER1. C.R.P.No.3265 of 1996 is against the judgment dated 12.11.1996 in C.M.A.No.100 of 1996 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, modifying and confirming the order dated 17.9.1996 in I.A.No. 691 of 1996 in O.S.No.499 of 1996, granting injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the operation of the bank accounts and carrying on the business of the partnership. Though, injunction was granted as prayed for by the trial Court, the injunction was modified by the lower appellate Court to the extent that the Managing Partner should convene the meeting of the partners once in a month and submit the accounts and giving opportunity to the petitioners to move the Court for appointment of a Receiver in case they were able to establish that there was necessity for doing so.2. C.R.P.No.3266 of 1966 is against the very same common order dated 12.11.1996 in C.M.A.No.101 of 1996 etc., on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli, c...
Subby Reddy @ Subbareddy Vs. Leelavathy Ammal and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)CTC723; (1998)IIIMLJ84
ORDER1. As against the order rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. to review the judgment delivered in O.S.No.202 of 1988 on 6.2.1995, he has presented this revision before this Court.2. Originally, the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No. 202 of 1988 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession as against the defendants, the respondents herein. During the course of trial, the trial Court found that there is no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, it dismissed the same on12.3.1993. As against that judgment, the petitioner filed C.M.A.No.24 of 1993 and by the order dated 21.3.1994 the appellate Court set aside the judgment dismissing the suit and remanded the matter to consider the question afresh.3. On 5.4.1994 the counsel for the petitioner made and endorsement that he would not press the jurisdiction point. Therefore, on 3.10.1994 the trial was conducted afresh. After examining of the witnesses, on 6.2.1995 the trial Court dis...
M/S. Free Look International, 98f, Alangadu Ist Street, Mangalam Road, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC46
ORDER1. Heard the petitioners Counsel. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has stated that he has filed petitions to recall the witness P.W.2, who was already examined to elicit further particulars by cross examining him further, and so he has filed the applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.408 of 1998 to 411 of 1998 in C.C.Nos.5 of 1998 to 9 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2 at Dindigul. The learned Magistrate dismissed the applications on the ground that time limit had been fixed by the Sessions Court of completion of the trial. Such a view of the learned Magistrate is erroneous for the reason that no time limit can be fixed for completion of the trial as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Abdul Rahman Anthuley v. R. S. Nayak, : 1992CriLJ2717 , wherein it was laid down that time limit for speedy trial of the criminal case cannot be drawn. As laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mohanlal Shamji Son v. Union of India, 1991 LW (2...
Sri Karunambikai Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR799(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following' questions of law for our consideration in respect of the assessment year 1980-81 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the additional payment made pursuant to a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act in consideration of the assurance of the trade unions to extend their co-operation for the better productivity in future was bonus in nature, barred by the proviso to Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently, would not qualify for deduction under Section 37 of the Act ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in confirming disallowance of extra-shift depreciation ignoring the Board's circular which is binding in law on the assessing authority ?'2. As regards the first question it deals with the deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, as regards an add...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. International Clearing and Shipping Age ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR172(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us, at the instance of the Revenue, is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the asses-see carrying on the business as clearing and shipping agents is entitled to be assessed at the tax rates applicable to a professional firm ?'2. The assessment years relating to which this question has arisen are 1978-79 to 1981-82. The claim of the assessee, a professional clearing and shipping agency, Madras, was that it is carrying on a profession and should, therefore, be taxed at the lower rate applicable to firms which carry on profession as provided in the Finance Act, 1979. The Commissioner of Income-tax as also the Tribunal accepted the plea of the assesseeon the ground that a similar plea had been accepted in respect of another shipping and clearing agency by the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench-D.3. Learned counsel for the Revenue placed before us the decision of the Bombay High Court which has disapproved the view of...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. N. Damodaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR360(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the question that has been referred to us is as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the value of the shares held by the assessee in Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Limited, should be adopted at Rs. 140 per share for the assessment year 1976-77.2. The order of the Tribunal discloses that these shares were unquoted during the relevant assessment year and that the Wealth-tax Officer had applied Rule 1D to estimate the value of the shares. The Tribunal has allowed the assessee's appeal against the order of the Wealth-tax Officer and has held that the shares are to be valued at the figure of Rs. 140 per share as there had been some transactions during that assessment year. The Tribunal also relied on ils earlier order in the case of Sabitha Chandran-W. T. A. Nos. 659 and 660 of 1977-78. That order of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Ramalinga Choodambigai Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: [1999]239ITR120(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The questions referred for our decision at the instance of the Revenue and which arose from the assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 of a textile mill, Sri Ramalinga Choodambigai Mills Ltd., Tirupur, are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 40,687 claimed to have been paid by the assessee for cancelling the contracts for purchase of cotton is not in the nature of a speculation loss ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee was not carrying on a speculation business and that the contracts entered into for purchase of cotton and the subsequent settlement of the contracts otherwise than by actual delivery of goods, will not constitute a speculation business ?'2. The assessee had entered into contracts during the previous year relevant to the assessment y...
Tea Estates India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR778(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. This is a combined reference at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the Department. The following questions of law have been referred for our consideration :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the surtax paid by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act is an admissible deduction in computing the total income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (2B) of Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1978, with effect from April 1, 1979, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the said provisions are applicable only to the expenditure incurred during the accounting year 1979-80 relevant to the assessment year 1980-81 and not to the assessment year 1979-80 itself ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to ...
P. Arunachalam Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR827(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian , J.1. At the instance of the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83, the following question of law is referred to us for our consideration :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of the Voluntary Separation Scheme, the sum of Rs. 77,490 can be subjected to tax ?'2. The assessee was an employee and the assessee received certain payments from his employer at the time of premature termination of his contract employment with his employer, namely, Rallis India Ltd., Bombay. The services of the assessee were terminated with effect from December 1, 1981, under a scheme styled the 'Voluntary Separation Scheme' and the assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 77,490. The question that arose before the Income-tax Officer was whether the amount received by the assessee was properly assessable as salary income. The Income-tax Officer held that under the provisions of Section 17(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act it was profit in lieu of salary and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »