Chennai Court July 1998 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. N. Gopalsamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR191(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Section 16 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to standard deduction of Rs. 4,500 under Section 16(i) since the assessee was getting the salary income from the two employers ?2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal's view that standard deduction under Section 16(i) should be allowed in respect of salary income derived by the assessee from each of the employers is sustainable ?'2. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1981-82. The assessee was formerly employed in Madras Rubber Factory Limited and he resigned his job with effect from May 31, 1980, and joined another concern, viz., Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sakinabai Ibrahim and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: [2000]241ITR71(Mad)
MRS. A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening of the assessments was valid in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the status of the assessee is only body of individuals ?'2. One Taharally Sarafally was a partner of Abbasbhoy Taharally and Co., having a l/3rd share therein. On his death, on April 26, 1951, a fresh partnership deed was executed and Begum Sakina Bai, wife of Taharally Sarafally, was taken in as a partner in the place of her deceased husband and was given her deceased husband's l/3rd share in the partnership. At the time of the death of Taharally Sarafally, he had also left behind him two sons and three daughters besides his widow and all the children were ...
Tag this Judgment!Tablets (India) Limited, Represented by Its Director, C.V. Subha Rao V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ347
ORDERT. Meenakumari, J.1. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in leading to the order bearing letter No. AAO/RPM/ AS.I/ Audit/D 1084/ 89, dated 6.5.1989 of the third respondent and quash the same and forbear the respondents from collecting the amount of Rs. 1,91,079.71 in connection with the petitioner's Account No. 01.112-16 or on any account.2. The case of the petitioner is that it is manufacturing pharmaceutical products. For the purpose of its business, the petitioner has a factory at No. 179, T.H.Road, Madras-1. It is also stated that for the purposes of running and operating their factory, the petitioner requires electricity supplied by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner company started its operations in 1966 and under Account No. 01.112/16, they availed of an electricity connection from the Electricity Board. At the initial stage, the petitioner was granted only a low tension (LT) supply which was subseque...
Tag this Judgment!Sakinabai Ibrahim and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1998
Reported in: (1999)154CTR(Mad)509
Subbulakshmy, J.In pursuance of the directions of this court, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening of the assessments was valid in law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the status of the assessee is only of body of individuals '2. One Taharally Sarafally was a partner of Abbasbhoy Taharally & Co., having one-third share therein. On his death on 26-4-1951, a fresh partnership deed was executed and Begum Sakina Bai, wife of Taharally Sarafally, was taken in as a partner in place of her deceased husband and was given her deceased husband's one-third share in the partnership. At the time of the death of Taharally Sarafally, he had also left behind him two sons and three daughters besides his widow and all the children were minors. When the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman-cum-managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: 1999(1)CTC436
ORDERJudgement pronounced by C. Shivappa, J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7.10.1996 passed in W.P.No. 15281 of 1994. By the order dated 17.8.1994, the appellants herein cancelled the order of confirmation of the highest bid of the respondent/petitioner and returned the Earnest Money Deposit by a crossed cheque drawn on Canara Bank. Pollachi. This order was challenged in the writ petition and sought for a direction to issue work orders on receiving due payments and executing the agreement in respect of lease unit for the disposal of 1240 standing silver oak trees in Valparai-Chinnakallar Division, Range-II/Field 8/plot II. 2. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion on the basis that there was a concluded contract and the policy of the Government cannot certainly affect the concluded rights in favour of the respondent. It has also been observed that the acceptance of the Earnest Money Deposit by the respondent will not in a...
Tag this Judgment!S. Santhana Selvaraj Vs. Jaffar Khan and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: 1998(3)CTC138
ORDER1. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondents have been impleaded as parties to the R.C.A.No.153 of 1989. They purchased the building from the original owner, the landlord of the petitioner herein. After impleading, the respondents filed applications I.A.Nos.385 and 386 of 1996 to adduce additional evidence. The Appellate Authority has allowed those applications by order dated 2.1.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the revision has been filed by the petitioner herein.2. Counsel for the petitioner contended with regard to the maintainability of the rent control appeal by the petitioners herein. I do not think, it is necessary at this stage, to go into the maintainability of the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority by the respondents herein.3. Admittedly the respondents have been impleaded in the R.C.A.No.153 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichy. Subsequent to that they filed applications I.A.Nos.385 and 386 of 1996 for adducing additional e...
Tag this Judgment!T. Seventhilingam Vs. Karur Vysia Bank Ltd., Trichy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1998
Reported in: (1998)3MLJ295
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J.1. The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit in O.S. No. 882 of 1989 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant/first respondent-bank from interfering with the enjoyment of the suit property.2. The first defendant/first respondent-bank filed a suit in O.S. No. 926 of 1978 to enforce the mortgage executed by the second defendant/second respondent. The said mortgage was executed on 24.5.1976. The said suit filed by the first respondent-bank was decreed and the second respondent went up to the High Court, aggrieved against the said decree, but failed in his attempt. It is relevant to mention here that the second respondent obtained a loan on 24.5.1976, by executing the said mortgage. At this stage, the appellant/plaintiff who is the son of the second respondent filed the present suit to stall the proceedings taken by the first respondent to executing the decree....
Tag this Judgment!Valluvar Thiraipada Arangam, Palani Town and Taluk, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)CTC723; (1998)IIIMLJ299
ORDER1. W.P.No.7429 of 1989 and W.p. 7436 of 1989 are filed by the respective petitioners for the issue of writ certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in Roc. C1/123820 of 1987 and Roc.C1/123819 of 1986, dated 14.7.1987, of the second respondent in D.Dis(1) (CA) 188 of 1987 and D.Dis (1) (CA) 189 of 1987, dated 21.8.1987 and of the first respondent in G.O.Rt No.1643, Home Cinemas.11, Department, dated 22.5.1989 and G.O.Rr.No.1064, Home Cine.I, Department, dated 24.5.1989 respectively and quash the same and consequently, forbear the respondent from enforcing the punishment of suspension against the petitioners in respect of the alleged violation on 9.11.1986.2. It is averred in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions that the petitioners are licensees of the permanent cinema called Valluvar Thiraipada Arangam and Cine Valluvar Theatre respectively in Palani Town and the theatres have been functioning meticulously observing the provisions of...
Tag this Judgment!Natchathiram and ors. Vs. Jayasekaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 2000ACJ902; (1998)IIIMLJ603
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The appellants in C.M.A. No. 481 of 1990 are the claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 307 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, which passed an order on 6.9.1988 awarding a sum of Rs. 64,800 as compensation, against the claim of Rs. 4,50,000 which is restricted to Rs. 2,50,000. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.2. C.M.A. No. 1587 of 1995 is filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which was the respondent No. 4 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 307 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, as the Tribunal fastened 50 per cent of the liability to the appellant and to the owner of the vehicle, viz., Parthasarathy, the appellant was aggrieved by the said order and filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal.3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred as they were arrayed in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 307 of 1986.4. The deceased Padmar...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Lux Flavours and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1998
Reported in: 2003(27)PTC365(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. These are appeals filed by the plaintiff against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge on the original side of this Court in O.A. Nos. 1004 and 1005 of 1992 and application Nos. 497 and 498 of 1993 in C.S. No. 1664 of 1992. The suit by the plaintiff was to restrain the defendants from infringing his trade mark 'Lux' which is registered in the name of the plaintiff in class 3 for soaps, perfumes, essential oils and cosmetics. The plaintiff had also sought for an injunction against the defendants for passing off the flavours and perfumes manufactured by it as those manufactured by the plaintiff by using the mark 'Lux' in relation to those products. The plaintiff's mark was registered in the year 1943.2. The case of the defendants is that it has commenced manufacture in 1981 that it had been regularly advertising its wares in the yellow pages ever since it commenced manufacture, that the product manufactured by it was flavours for uses in manufacture ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »