Chennai Court April 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.
Sumathiamma and ors. Vs. Thankamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ140
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Defendants 7 to 11 in O.S.No. 15 of 1971, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, are the appellants.2. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree of partition and separate possession of 1/2 share of 5/32 (i.e., 5/64) of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 44-4/9 cents of plaintiffs 3 to 10 in the suit property by metes and bounds and for recovery of the same from the defendants and for consequential reliefs. In the body of the plaint, it is stated that the entire plaint schedule property originally belonged to four houses viz., Poyvilai Veedu, Samayarathala Kunchu Veedu, Elayampara Veedu and Mampallivilakathu Veedu. Out of the four houses, Poyvilai Veedu was entitled to 5/8 share while the other three houses had l/8th share each in the suit property. Under Ex.A-1 partition deed dated 14.12.1922, in the Poyvilai Veedu one half of 5/8 share, of that Veedu devolved on Kumaran Krishanan and other half fell to the share of Raman Pillai Ramakrishna Pillai. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 defe...
V. Chandraprakasa Nadar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1998
Reported in: [1999]107TAXMAN31(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. In these actions, the parties are distinct and different. But nonetheless, the questions arising for consideration in these actions are so interlinked in such a way as is not possible to decide the one without I-he other. Desirable it is, in this view of the matter, to dispose of them by a common order.2. The factual matrix relevant for arriving at a decision in relation to the question under reference in the tax case may now be briefly stated :(a) The assessee, V. Chandraprakasa Nadar & Co., Trichy, is a registered firm and the assessment year involved is 1975-76 for which tile accounting year ended on 4-12-1973, being the date on which the firm was dissolved. The firm dealt with hardware, paints, cement and building materials on retail basis. The closing stock as per books on 4-12-1973 amounted to Rs. 9,27,459.66.(b) The assessee filed original return admitting income of Rs. 91,890 followed by a second revised return admitting an income of Rs. 2,78,235 inclusive of an...
P. Kannadasan Vs. Pownammal (Died) and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC206; (1998)IIIMLJ509
ORDER1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore, in A.S. No.18 of 1984 dated 21.12.1984 inconfirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Vellore, in O.S. No.2373 of 1981, dated 3.1.1984.2. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.3. The plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of the pleadings that the suit property originally belonged to the second defendant, that the second defendant had antecedent debts and other pressing financial commitments and therefore, he wanted to sell the suit property, that the plaintiff agreed to purchase from the second defendant and as per the agreement price was fixed at Rs.31,500, that after receiving the consideration the defendant had executed a registered sale deed on 15.10.1980 and put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property. Thus by virtue of the sale deed dated 15.10.1980 the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff also claimed that...
J. Ramayyan Vs. J. Palayyan and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC455; (1998)IIIMLJ745
ORDER1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in AS No.9 of 1982 dated 13.8.84 confirming that of the learned Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, in OS No.60 of 1981 dated 8.12.81.2. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the present second appeal.3. The suit was filed for partition. The plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are brothers and the fourth defendant is their mother. One Joseph Nadar being the father of defendants 1 to 3. The share of Joseph Nadar on his death devolved upon the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3. As per the Subsequent partition deed dated 19.1.1954, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 got the suit properties. It was also contended that they were in enjoyment and each was entitled to 1/5th share. The defendants are not amenable to effect partition out of court and hence the suit.4. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the allotment of share was mad...
The Collector of Madras, (Accommodation Control Wing), Chennai - 5 and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC51
ORDER1. The above civil revision petition has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.1997 made in R.C.A.No.965 of 1994 by the court of VII Small Causes Judge, Madras, thereby confirming the fair and decretal order dated 23.2.1994 made in R.C.O.P.No.2390 of 1992 by the XIV Small Causes Judge, Madras.2. Today when the above matter' has been taken up for consideration, this Court, on perusal of the lower court orders, the pleadings of parties, the evidence adduced by parties before the trial court and the first appellate Court, in consideration of the grounds of revision and upon hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioners add the respondents as well, this court passes the following order:-The R.C.O.P. in the trial court had been filed by the landlord/respondent herein seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenants under section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the sole ground of 'wilful default' in payment of monthly rents w...
Kasilinga Padayachi Vs. Kaliyaperumal Padayachi and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC128; (1999)3MLJ626
ORDER1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Vridhachalam, in A.S.No.17 of 1984 dated 17.1.1985 in reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Vridhachalam, in O.S.No.2258 of 1981, dated 24.8.1983. The plaintiff in the suit is appellant in the above second appeal.2. The suit was filed for redeeming the mortgage as against the first defendant in the suit. The plaintiff contended that the suit item in A schedule property belonged to him, while item B belonged to the second defendant. The second defendant had executed a possessory mortgage (Ex.A.1) in favour of the first defendant for a sum of Rs.1,300 on 22.10.1975 and it was stipulated that the first defendant shall hold, cultivate and enjoy the income from the properties in lieu of interest on the loan amount for a period of three years, by which time if the second defendant pays the loan amount, the first defendant shall redeem the mortgage. It is also contended by the p...
N. Palanisami Vs. A. Palaniswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Mad264; 1998(3)CTC158
ORDER1. This appeal has arisen out of an order dated 8.12.1989 made in G.W.O.P.No.291 of 1986 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The above said petition was filed under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (Act 32 of 1956) and under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 2. The respondent is the father of the minor girl Indirani. He filed the petition for the custody of the minor child from the custody of the maternal grandfather. He married the appellant's daughter Subbulakshmi on 27.3.1985 and out of the wedlock, a female child was bom on 11.4.1986. The mother of the child died within few hours after the delivery. As the body of Subbulakshmi was taken to the house of the appellant for performing the funeral ceremonies, the child was retained by the appellant/maternal grandfather. But on account of the quarrel when the respondent demanded the return of the jewels and other articles belonging to his wife, the appellant refused...
Tiruchirapalli Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: [2001]247ITR830(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, j. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the assessee arising out of assessment of its income for the assessment year 1980-81 is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,73,343 constituted income from other sources in the hands of the assessee ?2. A rice mill of the assessee was taken over by the Government on December 7, 1972, but the payment therefor was made only in the year 1978. That payment so made was towards the value of what had been taken possession of by the Government and was in the sum of Rs. 3,22,014. Further, a sum of Rs. 1,73,383 was paid as interest for the period between the date possession was delivered and the date of the Government order, which was on August 5, 1978. The Tribunal has held that the amount of interest paid to the assessee was in the nature of a revenue receipt and was taxable accordingly.3. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that in...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anna Transport Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]243ITR35(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The Revenue, aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, has caused the following question to be referred to us arising out of the respondent's assessment of the income for the assessment year 1980-81.2. The respondent-Anna Transport Corporation--is an undertaking wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It took over 49 buses from the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Transport Department at book value of Rs.22,73,513, against which, it paid a sum of Rs. 2,52,720 leaving a balance of Rs. 20,20,793. That was in the year 1975. The company made an abortive attempt to persuade the Government to set off this amount against the value of shares, which the company was willing to issue to the Government. That attempt not having succeeded, five years later, on March 27, 1980, the Government directed that the amount outstanding be treated as a loan carrying interest at the rate of 18 per cent. The Government also required the Corporation to pay the interest before March 31, 1980. The...
R.M. Appavu Chettiar Sons and Thangam Industries Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1998
Reported in: [2000]244ITR484(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. The parties in these actions are different. The question of law, however, involved in these actions is one and the same. Desirable it is, therefore, to dispose of them, by a common order, though, of course, after stating' the minimal facts required for arriving at a just decision.2. In the tax case (reference), the assessee, Appavu Chettiar Sons, Madurai, is a registered firm, which derives income from jewellery business. The firm consists of eight partners, in their capacity as kartas of the Hindu undivided family (HUF).3. The partners, in the capacity of kartas of the Hindu undivided family, it is said, deposited certain amounts in the firm. Interest payments were made to them in respect of the deposits they have made in the firm. During the assessment year 1982-83, the question that arose for consideration was as to whether the interest payments made to them can qualify for deduction in the computation of the income under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »