Chennai Court June 1998 Judgments
The Licensee, Sri Lala Talkies Vs. the District Collector, Madurai Dis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)1MLJ526
S.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Secretary to Government, (Home Cinema-H) Department, in G.O.N.(1D) 666, dated 24.2.1997, on the file of 3rd respondent and quash the same.2. Petitioner is the licensee of Sri Lala Talkies, Vadipatti, Madurai District. It originally belonged to late Pon. Perumalsamy Naidu. On his death, the same devolved on his three sons, namely, Perumal, Pon-Subbiah and Thirumalaisamy Naidu. Of the three sons, Perumal is the petitioner and Pon-Subbiah is the 4th respondent herein. After the death of their father, a partition was effected in which the theatre was not the subject-matter. Even now the theatre and compound are retained as common property by the three brothers and all the three are even now co-owners. It is said that 'C' Form licence was issued to the petitioner since he is a co-owner. But, one of the co-owners, namely, 4th respondent filed application before the 1st respondent for cance...
Tag this Judgment!M. Sundaram Alias Vettukati Sundaram Vs. R. Thangasamy Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ3
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No. 191 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District, Munsif, Kuzhithurai. The respondent herein filed the above suit for injunction restraining the petitioner and others from interfering with his possession.2. According to the respondent/plaintiff he was in possession of the property from 1966 onwards and his possession is not liable to be disturbed by any one including the petitioner. He also filed for an appointment of a Commissioner verified and report about the physical features of the suit property and the building situated therein, and to specifically note the details of the compound wall with the gate surrounding the suit property etc. In the plaint it is stated that there was earlier a suit in between the respondent and his elder brother Arumuga Nadar and his wife Ponnachi in O.S.No. 640 of 1974. The suit was decreed declaring that Arumuga Nadar and his wife are entitled to 3/4th share in the property and the same i...
Tag this Judgment!Canute P. Rayan Vs. Additional Block Development Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ257
ORDERS.S. Subramani, J.1. Petitioner is the owner of a residential house at Veerapandian Pattinam in the Tuticorin District and the construction was over on 28.12.1989. He applied for water connection to the second respondent after paying necessary fees.2. Veerapandian Pattinam is a coastal village and there is scarcity of water and there is no other protected water supply except the water supply by the second respondent. The second respondent constructed an overhead tank for supply of water for the fishermen in the coastal area since enough water did not reach the said houses. He put up fresh water tanks nearby and started giving water supply connections from the new water tank. In the result, there was a vacancy for 13 water supply connections in the hold tank available with the second respondent.3. The petitioner therefore, applied on 28.12.1989 with payment of registration fees, the second defendant, after collecting the amount from the petitioner and following the procedure, gave ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Arangaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1998
Reported in: (1999)155CTR(Mad)88
ORDERBabu, J. The common question that arises for our consideration in all these tax cases is as to whether the incentive bonus and the additional conveyance allowance paid to the Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corpn. of India (LIC) form part of their salary and liable to be assessed to tax as salary.2. This court in the case of CIT v. E.A. Rajendran (1997) 142 CTR (Mad.) 244 has held that in the absence of any notification issued by the Central Government under section 10(14)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') granting exemptions, the incentive bonus and additional conveyance allowance are liable to be assessed to tax as salary. This Court also held that such bonus and the additional allowance are part of the salary of the employee having regard to the terms used in sections 16 and 17 of the Act.3. A view similar to the one taken by this court has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. A. Choudary v. CIT : [1990]18...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Thirumalaisamy Vs. Tmt. Bangarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: 1999CriLJ1256
ORDERM. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Mr. A. P. Thirumalaisamy, the petitioner herein as against the impugned order dismissing his private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has filed this revision.2. Facts are these : On 2-5-1990 there was an agreement between the petitioner herein/complainant and the first respondent. By virtue of this agreement, the first respondent agreed to purchase the property which belonged to the petitioner for the sale consideration of Rs, 3,10,000/-. On the date of agreement, an advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to the complainant. It was agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- was to be paid within three months. However, within three months, the first respondent was not able to pay the balance amount and she had paid only Rs. 80,000/- on 21 -8-90 and on the said date further time was sought.,3. In the year 1994, the first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 286 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Udumalpet for the relief of s...
Tag this Judgment!N. Gopalakrishnan and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1998
Reported in: [1999]236ITR629(Mad)
Y. Venkatachalam, J. 1. Since the subject matter involved in these writs and also the respondents herein are all one and the same, all these three writ petitions were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned.2. Invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein, have filed the present writ petitions, seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in C. No. 417/1/34 (1 to 6) of 1985-86 dated March 29, 1989 C. No. 417/2/34(1) of 1985-86, dated February 27, 1989, and C. No. 417/1/34/d) of 1985-86 dated March 17, 1989, respectively and to quash the same in so far as it is against the petitioners herein and further to direct the first respondent to waive the balance interest of Rs. 5,957.25, Rs. 10,558 and Rs. 8,880, respectively, levied under Sections 139(8) and 217 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1984 under Section 273A of the Act in p...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran and Others Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: 1998(1)ALT(Cri)402; 1999(1)CTC259
ORDERJudgement pronounced by T. Jayarama Chouta, J.1. The appellants, who are four in number and were accused in S.C.No. 191 of 1987 on the file of the Sessions Judge, South Arcot, have filed this criminal appeal, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 7.9.88.2. Accused No.1 was tried for the offences under section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Ali and under section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on two counts for sharing the common intention to commit the murder of Ali. He was also tried for an offence under section 201 of Indian Penal Code on three counts for causing the evidence to disappear so as to screen himself from the legal punishment of the murder of Ali, Sekar and Nehru. He has been convicted under sections 302, 302 read with 34 (2 counts) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also under section 201 (3 counts) Indian Penal Code and sentenced to under go R.I for 3 years on each account.3. Accused No. 2 was tri...
Tag this Judgment!Mks. Mohd. Aboobacker Saheb Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR319(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. As to whether the amount received by an informer as reward from the Government for having given information about concealment by a manufacturer of goods regarding the proper amount on which excise duty was payable, should be treated as an 'award' for gallantry or merit, is the question that arises for consideration in this petition.2. The petitioner received a sum of Rs. 24,40,000 for having given such information. The petitioner contends that the amount is an 'award' for meritorious service rendered by him and, therefore, is exempt from wealth-tax under Section 5(1)(xviii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.3. There is a difference between reward and award. The reward was received by the petitioner for the information which he provided. An award, on the other hand, is normally given in recognition of a significant achievement normally over and above the call of duty and is not a payment for service rendered. The reward obtained by the petitioner was really a payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Crompton Engineering Co. Ltd. (Now Best ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]242ITR317(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 70,000 paid to A. F. Ferguson and Company, Chartered Accountants, Bombay, was an admissible deduction in computing the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1974-75 2. This tax case is of the year 1982 and has been lying undisposed of on the board of this court. It is most unfortunate that the matter should have been pending in this court for such a long time.3. The question referred to us is really as to whether the amount paid to the consultant is to be regarded as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer who called for the reports and perused the reports submitted by the consultants formed the opinion that far reaching and revolutionary changes for the reorganisation of the company have been suggested and, therefore, the cost of that r...
Tag this Judgment!Simpson and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR620(Mad)
N.V. Balasueramanian, J.1. This is a petition by the assessee to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the following questions of law under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of valuation of the land for the assessment year 1988-89 :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the valuation of the land of the assessee at Sembium and Madhavaram ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the land at Sembium and Madhavaram which are the subject-matter of acquisition under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act should not be valued as per the compensation payable under the Act, as held by the Madras High Court in the case reported in CWT. v. K. S. Ranganatha Mudaliar : [1984]150ITR619(Mad) ?'2. The assessee admittedly is the owner of the land situated at Madha-varam and Sembium. The Assessing Officer estimated the value of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »