Chennai Court November 1999 Judgments
Sirish Kumar Bros, by Its Partner Sirish Kumar Baffna, Carrying on Bus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC73; (2000)1MLJ223
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. The appellant filed a Claim No.203 of 1994 in I.P.No.14 of 1993 alleging that the insolvent P.Savithri & P.Neeraja, partners of M/s.Shree Krishna Prasad & Co. and M/s.Padma Priya Trading Co. on the date of order of adjudication viz. 25.2.93 were indebted for a sum of Rs.3,62,309.80 further Rs.2,00,000 was towards principal, Rs.1,32,509.80 towards interest andRs.29,800 towards commission as shown by the amount on 13 promissory notes as mentioned herein:-PrincipalInterestCommission1. Promissory Note dated 19.6.9020,00013,2522,9802. Promissory Note dated 19.6.9011,0007,2881,6393. Promissory Note dated 19.6.9020,00013,2512,9804. Promissory Note dated 19.6.9011,0007,2881,6395. Promissory Note dated 19.6.9015,0009.938.252,2356. Promissory Note dated 19.6.9020,00013,2512,9807. Promissory Note dated 18.6.9025,00016,563.703,7258. Promissory Note dated 19.6.9010,0006,625.501,4909. Promissory Note dated 15.4.9120,00013,2512,98010. Promissory Note...
Tag this Judgment!G. Bhuvaneswari and 3 Others Vs. M. Sornakumar and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: II(2000)ACC231; 2000ACJ1343; 2000(1)CTC145; (2000)1MLJ280
ORDERA. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Claimants are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Janakiraman, who died as a result of the accident that occurred on 24.6.1994 at about 22.05 hours while he was proceeding in his moped from the West to East towards loading section in his factory. At that time the tempo bearing Registration No.TDD 8706 came from North to South inside the factory driven by its driver, the third respondent, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the moped which the deceased Janakiraman was driving, The said Janakiraman was thrown off from his vehicle and he sustained injuries and inspite of intensive treatment in the hospital, he died.2. The tribunal found that the accident had happened due to the negligent driving of the tempo driver, the third respondent. The tribunal had further found that the place where the accident occurred is a private place and the second respondent Insurance Company is not liable as per provisions of section 147 of the Motor Vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!Thina Boomi Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)CTC351
ORDER1. The petitioner, proprietor of Thina Boomi, a monthly magazine, seeks to quash the first information report, registered in Crime No.1219 of 1999, pending for investigation before the first respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner gave an advertisement in a daily, Thina Boomi dated 18.10.1999 and 22.10.1999, announcing that Thina Boomi monthly would be publishing a 'Deepavali Special Malar' for the year 1999 at a cost of Rs 100 and those who purchase the malar would get a prize coupon inside the malar on production of such prize coupon, the purchaser would be getting a bumper prize or any other prize. 3. It appears that a complaint was lodged before the first respondent on 25.10.99 by one V.Hari Babu, son of Venkata Krishnan, 18, Kovur Vaidyanathan St, Chinthadripet, Chennai-2, stating that he read an advertisement in Thina Boomi Daily dated 18.10.99 and 21.10.99 that Thina Boomi Deepavali Malar will be sold for Rs 100 this year and every issue of the Deepavali ...
Tag this Judgment!Madhina Begum Vs. Pichayammal and 2 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)CTC9
ORDER1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.62 of 1981, on the file of sub Court, Chidambaram, is the appellant. Suit filed by him is one for specific performance of a agreement of sale dated 28.3.1981.2. Plaint schedule property belonged to the first defendant, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for a total, consideration of Rs. 62,100. On the date of agreement, a sum of Rs 12,100 was paid and the balance payable was Rs.50, 000 out of the said amount, it was agreed that Rs.8,000 will have to be paid to one of the tenants occupying the building since the vendor has received advance from him. Another sum of Rs.15,000 was to be paid to discharge a mortgage debt. Interest till that date was paid by the vendor. Three months period was also provided to settle the transaction and the balance amount ofRs.27,000 was directed to be paid, and plaintiff was asked to take the sale deed on payment of such amount. The agreement further provided that on payment of balance of sale consideration and discharge of th...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarayana Films Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: [2000]244ITR344(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J. 1. At the instance of the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', has referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1975-76 under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of Rs. 1,05,000 accrued to the assessee under the agreement dated May 25, 1974 and August 27, 1974, during the previous year ended on March 31, 1975?'2. The assessee is a firm, which had leased out the dubbing rights of its picture 'Sri Rama Anjeneyayudham' for Tamil and Malayalam to Jay Films and Cine Link Service by agreements dated May 25, 1974 and August 27, 1974, for considerations of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 45,000, respectively. The assessee did not disclose any income arising from the above-said agreements for the assessment year 1975-76, relevant to the previous year ending with March 31, 1975. An income of Rs. 25,8...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: [2000]245ITR400(Mad)
N. V. Balasubramanian, J.1. There are three assessees, viz., M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust, M. Ct. Trust and S. RM. M. Ct. M. Thiruppani Trust. The assessment years involved in all the three cases is the same viz., 1972-73. It would be sufficient to notice the facts in the case of M. Ct. Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), as the facts in the other cases are more or less similar and the other cases raise identical disputes.2. The assessee is a public charitable trust eligible for exemption from income-tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). The assessee, in the instant case, for the assessment years commencing from 1962-63 and ending on 1971-72, had been accumulating the income of the trust as declared in the notice in Form No. 10. The income so accumulated should have been utilised for the purposes for which it was accumulated before April 1, 1972. The purposes for which the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. C. Seshachalam Chetty (Decd) (by Execut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: [2000]243ITR531(Mad)
P. Thangavel, J. 1. As per the order of this court in T. C. P. Nos. 466 to 469 of 1984, dated March 19, 1984, the following common questions of law were referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A', for our opinion under Section 27(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no material or information for the Wealth-tax Officer for reopening the assessment under Section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act and in cancelling the assessment as not valid in law ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that the lands belonging to the assessee and situated at Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Madras, were only agricultural lands on the relevant dates ?' 2. The assessments relating to the late C. Seshachalam Chetty by an executor V. R. Bakthavatsal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. C. Seshachalam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: [2000]108TAXMAN570(Mad)
ORDERThangavel, J.As per the order of this court in T.C.P. Nos. 466 to 469 of 1984 dated 19-3-1984, the following common questions of law were referred to this Court by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'A', for our opinion under section 27(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'):1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no material or information for the Wealth-tax Officer for reopening the assessment under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and in cancelling the assessment as not valid in law ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that the lands belonging to the assessee and situated at Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Madras, were only agricultural lands on the relevant dates ?'2. The assessments relating to the late C. Seshachalam Chetty by executor V.R. Bakthavatsalem, 97, Wallaj...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M.Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: (2000)162CTR(Mad)63
N. V. Balasubramanian. J.There are three assessees viz. M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family Trust, M.Ct. Trust and S.RM.M.Ct.M. Thiruppani Trust. The assessment years involved in all the three cases is the same viz., 1972-73. It would be sufficient to notice the facts in the case of M.Ct. Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') as the facts in other cases are more or less similar and other cases raise identical disputes,2. The assessee is a public charitable trust eligible for exemption from income-tax in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the ActT The assessee in instant case, for the assessment years commencing from 1962-63 and ending on 1971-72, had been accumulating income of the trust as declared in the notice in Form 10. The income so accumulated should have been utilised for the purposes for which it was accumulated before 1-4-1972. The purposes for which the accumulation was sought are stated as follo...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshminarayana Films Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1999
Reported in: [2001]244ITR344(Mad)
P. Thangavel J.At the instance of the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', has referred the following question of law for the assessment year 1975-76 under section 256(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of Rs. 1,05,000 accrued to the assessee under the agreement dated 25-5-1974 and 27-8-1974, during the previous year ended on 31-3-1975 ?'2. The assessee is a firm, which had leased out the dubbing rights of its picture 'Sri Rama Anjeneyayudham' for Tamil and Malayalam to Jay Films and Cine Link Service by agreements dated 25-5-1974 and 27-8-1974, for considerations of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 45,000, respectively. The assessee did not disclose any income arising from the abovesaid agreements for the assessment year 1975-76, relevant to the previous year ending with 31-3-1975. An income of Rs. 25,80,800 had been returned in the ass...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »