Chennai Court November 2000 Judgments
Udayanasamy thevar and ors. Vs. Mootor thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ137
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.1998 made in A.S.No. 22 of 1998 by the Court of Principal District Judge, Sivaganga, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1997 made in O.S.No. 15 of 1997 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Sivaganga.2. To trace the history of the case, it is the respondent herein who has filed the suit in O.S.No. 15 of 1997 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Sivaganga, for declaration that the plaintiff is independently entitled to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with or trespassing into and disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and for costs.3. Adverting to the facts of the case, the plaintiff would state that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff ancestrally; that on 30.6.1973, patta was also granted in his favour; than an Inam Abolition appeal prefer...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sheik Dawood Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Direct ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ246
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1986 made in O.S.No. 157 of 1984 by the Court of District Judge, Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam.2. To trace the facts, the original suit before the trial court has been filed by the respondent herein for recovery of an amount of Rs. 15,146.79 with interest and costs, on averments that the defendant submitted a tender and it was accepted on 13.5.1975 directing him to remit the full value within 15 days as per letter dated 20.5.1975, but the defendant defaulted, that on his failure to remove the materials on payment of an amount of Rs. 56,789.99 within the time stipulated, the earnest money deposit of Rs. 1,000 was forfeited and fresh tenders have been called for; that the highest tender was for an amount of Rs. 40,800 and therefore the plaintiff sustained a loss of Rs. 15,989.99 apart from the advertisement charges at Rs. 156.80 but deducting the earnest money deposit of Rs. 1,000, the defendant as li...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)364
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.The question referred to us is as to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty paid under rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and the amount paid in lieu of confiscation of goods, could be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the assessee.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of excisable goods and is required to comply with the Central Excise Act and Rules framed thereunder. The provision of that Act and Rules exposes the assessee to penalty provided for under the Act and Rules. As a consequence of violation of rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, such infraction having resulted from the removal of the goods without making entries in the register. The assessee was called upon to pay and paid a sum of Rs. 18,500 as penalty. In lieu of the confiscation of the goods to which assessee had become subject by reason of the violation of certain other provisions of the Rules, the assessee was levied a fine of Rs. 3,500 in lieu of the conf...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-2000
Reported in: (2001)165CTR(Mad)465
R. Jayasimh Babu, J.The Tribunal has upheld the assessee's objection to the reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 by holding that what the Income Tax Officer purported to do was merely to reopen the assessment based on a change in his own opinion as to how the computation of the income should have been done.2. In the original assessment, all the information required for the computation of the income, and the deductions claimed had been placed before the Income Tax Officer. There is no dispute on that score, The weighted deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 35B of the Income Tax Act in respect of interest earned on securities had been allowed, so also the assessee's claim for treating the loss on securities as a revenue loss. The law with regard to these aspects had not changed as a consequence of any judicial decision after the date of the assessment nor had the law laid down in a manner different from the way it was applied to the original assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!Vittal Vel Press Rep. by Thayarammal No. 10, Audiappa Naicken St, Chen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ709
ORDER1. The petitioner, who is a tenant under a temple having suffered a decree of eviction and fought all the way up to Supreme Court, is now before this court making a last ditch to resist execution on the ground that the exemption from provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 under G.O.M.s No.2000, dated 16.8.1976 (herein after referred to as G.O) will not cover buildings owned by temples. The executability of the decree for eviction obtained by the respondent in O.S.No.2504 of 1976 was challenged by an application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, whichwas dismissed by the Court below. The civil revision petition is against this order. 2. Mr.T.N. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the building owned by temples are not exempted from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and hence the decree passed by the Civil Court against the petitioner is not executable. According to the l...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A. Packirisamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: [2001]248ITR239(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Two questions have been referred to us, the second of which is returned unanswered, as the facts required for answering the same are not set out in the order of reference, nor are the rele vant facts brought out in the order of the Tribunal or the authorities below.2. The question requiring our answer which concerns the assessment year 1977-78 under the Wealth-tax Act is as to whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 made to the net wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78.3. The assessee had made a gift of Rs. 1,00,000 to one Kannuswamy by undertaking to bear his liability to that extent. Kannuswamy was indebted to the firm, Aruna Trading Company, in which both the donor-appellant and the donee were partners. That sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was by way of a debit entry transferred from the credit balance in the assessee's account in that firm to the account of the donee on August 16, 1975. The Revenue has not questioned the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. T.M.S.M. Augusteen (Decd.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)190; [2002]257ITR655(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Revenue has called into question the correctness of the view recorded by the Tribunal that when the owner of the industrial undertaking leased out the machinery he is to be granted the benefit of exemption of the value of such machinery provided for in Section 5(1)(xxxi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, during the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80.2. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family which owns machinery used for oil extraction. The machinery was leased out by it to another firm and was being used for the extraction of groundnut oil ; that the machinery formed part of the industrial undertaking was not questioned by the Revenue at any time. The Income-tax Officer and also the Appellate Assistant Commissioner denied the benefit of exemption solely on the ground that the machinery though belonging to the assessee did not form part of the industrial undertaking belonging to the assessee. The Tribunal having held otherwise, the Revenue sought the reference...
Tag this Judgment!Thangaraj A. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: [2002(92)FLR858]; (2002)ILLJ726Mad
Y. Venkatachalam, J.1. The present writ petition is filed by the writ petitioner by name one A. Thangaraj, a resident of Moonrumavadi K., Pudur post, Madurai, invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for the relief sought for setting aside the award passed against the petitioner by the first respondent, viz., the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D. No. 235 of 1990, dated April 23, 1993.2. In support thereon, the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein he has narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced him to file the present writ petition and requested this Court to allow the writ petition.3. The other side contesting the second respondent/management has filed a counter-affidavit rebutting all the allegations levelled against them one after another and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition for want of merits.4. The point for consideration is as towhether there are any valid grounds to allowthe writ petition or not. The point.5. I have gone th...
Tag this Judgment!B. Deenadayalan Vs. the Management, Kancheepuram Kamakshiamman Silk Ha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ145
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The first respondent in W.P.No. 5583 of 1999, aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in allowing the writ petition filed by the Management, a Co-operative Society thereby quashing the proceedings of the second respondent herein, has preferred this writ appeal praying to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 5583 of 1999.2. Tracing the history of the case, we are able to find that two charges have been framed against the appellant/workman by the Management, first respondent Co-operative Society as per the charge memo dated 7.6.1996 relating to misappropriation of substantial volume of stock and cash proceeds thereby causing a loss to the management to the tune of Rs. 6,98,935. The Management seeking explanation of the appellant on the charges framed and having not been satisfied with the explanations offered by the appellant/delinquent, had ordered the domestic enquiry appointing the Enquiry Officer for...
Tag this Judgment!Safia Banu Vs. Asamadhunnisabi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ172
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. The defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 131 of 1981 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1996 made in A.S. No. 737 of 1984 thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 7.8.1984 made by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppattur. 2. It is a suit filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of a contract dated 25.6.1981 alleged to have been executed in between the appellant and the respondent thereby the appellant agreeing to sell the suit property in favour of the respondent for a sale consideration of Rs. 31,000, and on payment of an advance amount of Rs. 15,000 and on further agreement that in four months time, that is within 25.10.1981, on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 14,000, by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant should come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.3. The further case of the plaintiff is that prior to the suit agreement, there had been...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »