Chennai Court March 1998 Judgments
Vanavamalai, P and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ476
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Aggrieved by the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition on various grounds.2. The petitioners own lands in Sooriyur village, Tiruchirapalli Taluk. The respondents have initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire the lands of the petitioners. It is stated that Bharathidasan University has submitted proposals to the State Government that it requires 500 acres of land under first stage I. Initially the State Government issued orders to acquire the said 500 acres of land in Sooriyur village. However, the lands belonging to the petitioners were not included in the said order. In this regard, Section 4(1) Notification was published in the Government Gazette on 31.12.86. The substance of the notification was also published in the local dailies circulated in the area. Pursuant to the notification, 2nd respondent on 30.1.1987 issued notices to the petitioners that the lands belonging to them are requi...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Amirthavalli Firm Represented by Its Partner, N. Palanivel Vs. Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ632
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.161 of 1977, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by the plaintiff-Firm was one for recovery of money against the defendant. Plaintiff-Firm is a salt merchant at Tuticorin and defendant was a manufacturer of salt at Arumuganeri. In 1974 there was scarcity of wagons to load salt in the Railway Stations. It was regulated on quota basis. Being a salt manufacturer, defendant was entitled to allotment of wagons on turn basis. Defendant had orally agreed with the plaintiff at Tuticorin to place the wagons to be allotted to him at Arumuganeri on quota to be utilised by the plaintiff. The wagons included open and covered, and defendant had agreed to place five open wagon and four covered wagons at the disposal of the plaintiff. For that purpose, defendant had received from plaintiff Rs. 4,650. But the defendant had committed breach of contract. He placed 2 open wagons and 4 covered wagons at the disposal of p...
Tag this Judgment!R. Sankaranarayanan Vs. Anandhavalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)2MLJ490
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.1. This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 27.2.1989 in C.M.A.No. 10 of 1989 on the file of the District Judge, Tirunelveli, reversing the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli dated 4.3.1988 in H.M.O.P.No. 91 of 1987, dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent.2. The appellant/husband filed H.M.O.P No. 91 of 1987 under Section 12(1)(b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage dated 1.6.1984 at Tiruchendur. His case is that the appellant did not know anything about the family of the respondent. During the betrothal and the marriage, the father of the respondent fraudulently concealed the fact that the respondent was subject to recurrent attacks of insanity. The consent of the appellant was obtained by fraud. The reception function as mentioned in the invitation could not be performed on account of the behaviour of the respondent. Her behaviour was strange, odd and uncommon. On 1.6.1984 itself, the ...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Ramakrishnan and anr. Vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ357
S.S. Subramani, J.1. First defendant died after the judgment of the lower appellate court. Legal representatives of deceased first defendant in O.S.No. 352 of 1973, on the file of III Additional Sub Court, Madurai, are the appellants.2. Parties herein will be referred according to their rank in the suit.3. Facts of the case may be summarised thus:Late Venkatavaradha Iyengar, a leading lawyer of Madurai Bar, had two sons by name Parthasarathy Iyengar and Rajagopala Iyengar. Besides the sons, he had three daughters by name Renganayaki, Rajamani and Lakshmi Bai Ammal (first defendant in the suit). Under Exs.A-1 and A-2, late Venkatavaradha Iyengar had made certain arrangements for his grandchildren through his two elder daughters. He wanted to make similar provision to the first defendant. The arrangement which he made for the grandchildren through the daughters was by taking two documents executed by the daughters in the nature of a declaration of trust. On 29.11.1929, his elder daughter...
Tag this Judgment!Anandan Vs. Smt. Raji Alias Jayalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ85
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendant in O.S.No. 330 of 1980, on the file of Additional District Munsifs Court, Pondicherry, is the appellant.2. Suit filed by plaintiff was in effect for partition and for reconveyance of the property. After the suit was filed, the original plaintiff died, and respondent herein was impleaded as legal heir in the suit itself.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 21.3.1975 she executed a mortgage in favour of the defendant after receipt of Rs. 2,500, agreeing to repay the amount within a period of two years from the date of mortgage. Possession was also not handed over to the defendant. Plaintiff continued to be in possession and while so, the defendant trespassed into the property in December, 1979. On 19.1.1979, plaintiff requested the defendant to hand over possession of the property on receipt of the amount which she had borrowed. He refused to do so. The reason for the refusal is that in the mortgage deed executed by her, there is a provision that in c...
Tag this Judgment!S.K.V. Selvaraj Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1999)151CTR(Mad)236
N. V. BALASUBRAMA1VIAN, J.The two questions of law relating to assessment of income for the asst. yr. 1979-80 for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the assessee are as follows:1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and had sufficient material to hold that the applicant would not be entitled to claim the carry forward and set off of the loss as per the return filed for the asst. yr. 1978-79?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the entry made by the ITO in the order sheet for the asst. yr. 1978-79 would not amount to a computation and determination of the loss as per the return filed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Esthuri Aswathiah vs. ITO ?2. The assessee filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1979-80 on 31st March, 1982,, claiming adjustment of the loss for the asst. yr. 1978-79. The ITO rejected the claim of the assessee holding that such an assessment was not made for that year and the assessee's claim ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Match Industries (B-unit) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1998
Reported in: (1998)149CTR(Mad)22
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.TC No. 941 of 1985 relates to the assessee, the Yennarkey R. Ravindran Family Trust, doing business known as Standard Match Industries, Sivakasi, for the assessment year 1976-77. T.C. No. 161 of 1985 relates to the assessee M/s Ashok Match Industries (B-Unit), Sivakasi, for the assessment year 1976-77 and T.C. No. 1457 of 1985 relates to another assessee, M/s Hariram Match Industries, Sivakasi, for the assessment year 1978-79.2. In compliance with the directions of this Court in T.C.P. No. 278 of 1983 dt. 21-2-1984 in the case of the Yennarkey R. Ravindran Family Trust, Sivakasi the following question of law has been referred to us for our consideration:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from the business of M/s Ashok Match Industries (B-Unit) run by Sankaralingam. and his wife as trustees after partition cannot be assessed in the status of assessing officer as such but shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Rep. by Chairman, Telecom Commission, New Delhi - 11000 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC441
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by D. Raju, J.1. Having regard to the fact that the main writ petition itself is concerned with the question of transfer and the legality and validity of theorder of transfer made by the writ petitioner Department. We have directed the learned counsel appearing on either side to argue the main writ petition itself and the counsel argued the case, elaborately.2. The above writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 3.2.1998 whereunder the Tribunal below chose to interfere with an order of transfer made by the second and third petitioners before us on 26.12.1997 (Fax Message) and 1.1.1998 respectively under which the respondent herein was transferred from Thanjavur to Chennai as Senior Superintendent (Telegraph Traffic) The respondent herein challenged the order of transfer on the ground that it is punitive in nature and tainted with mala fides. The respondent tried to substantiate his ground of ...
Tag this Judgment!Agrimmoor P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: [2001]251ITR726(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian , J. 1. The question of law referred at the instance of the assessee for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 reads as under:'Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of expenditure incurred on Agmark coupons, fumigation charges, carriage of export goods, marine insurance and certificate of origin under the provisions of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1978-79 ?'2. A bare reading of the question would indicate that the claim of the assessee is under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for weighted deduction in respect of certain items of expenditure set out in the question. We are of the opinion that so far as Agmark expenses are concerned, it cannot be said that it was incurred exclusively for the purpose of submitting technical information to the foreign buyers for promoting export sales of the assessee.3. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Navabharat Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (No. 2) : [1988]17...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Exports Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR150(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The assessee is a non-resident company. The Income-tax Officer completed the assessment for the assessment year 1968-69 and found that the assessee had paid a lump sum of Rs. 10,000 to its foreign collaborator and claimed the same as deduction in computing its business income. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that the expenditure was incurred for the acquisition of technical know-how and held that since the lump sum amount was paid for the acquisition of technical knowledge from its foreign collaborator to enter into a new production, the amount claimed should be regarded as capital expenditure and accordingly, disallowed the same in the computation ofincome. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the lump sum payment for technical know-how was revenue in nature as there was no acquisition of capital assets by the assessee. The above view of the Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »