Chennai Court December 2000 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.
Boeing Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: [2001]250ITR667(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babi, J.1. The assessee contends that the value of an ambassador car received by it as a gift under a gift scheme formulated by the Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited in the centenary year of that company the gift scheme providing for such gifts to those dealers who purchased more than Rs. 8 lakhs worth of goods from the company-is not income which is exigible to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year is 1980-81.2. The scheme that had been formulated by that company in its centenary year was one, which was directed at increasing the sales of its manufactured goods through its dealers, and to achieve that object provided incentives to dealers who exceeded the targets fixed under the scheme. The relevant part of the scheme addressed to the dealers stated :'... to enable you to stock and sell more of these fabulous suitings, we offer-Bombay Dyeing Retailers a host of incentive . . .'3. The communication addressed to the dealers also stated :'We w...
Easwaran Vs. Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ318
K. Sampath, J.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition arise out of matrimonial/maintenance proceedings. The husband is the appellant in the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal and the wife is the petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition.2. The husband filed a petition for divorce in O.P.No. 68 of 1992 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Gobichettipalayam, against the wife alleging adultery. The parties were married on 12.6.1975 as per Hindu customary rites and conventions of the families at the residence of the husband at Kuppichipalayam. They were living happily. But, they were not blessed with any child. Medical check-ups were not helpful. According to the husband, at the instance of her father one Perama Gounder, who was also a resident of Kuppichipalayam and her junior paternal uncle one Chinnu, the wife started pestering the husband for settling his properties in her favour, that as he refused to comply with her request, she developed hatred and m...
P.Subramanian Udayar Vs. Eswari and 4 Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)2MLJ19
ORDER1. This Appeal Suit No.637 of 1987 and Transfer Appeal No.1086 of 1987 arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 19.3.1987 made in O.S.Nos.501 of 1983 and 18 of 1984 respectively. O.S.No.501 of 1983 was preferred by the appellant herein for specific performance of the agreement dated 27.2.1982 and O.S.No.18 of 1984 was preferred by the respondents herein for declaration and possession of the very same property for which specific performance was prayed for by the appellant in the other suit.2. The parties to the appeals are herein after referred to by their respective status as mentioned in the suit in O.S.No.501 of 1983. As such the appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants 1 to 5.3. The plaintiff claims that his wife and the first defendant are cousin sisters, that the suit schedule property situated in S.F.No.508/2 of Komarapalayam, measuring to an extent of 2.00 acres came to the share of thefirst defendant, that the plaintiff was cultivating the suit ...
Kalpaka Transport Co. Ltd. Vs. the Oriental Fire and General Insurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ714
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This appeal suit is directed against thejudgment and decree dated 5-3-1986 made in O.S. No. 9019/84 on the file of the 8th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. Madras. The defendant is the appellant herein.2. A suit was filed by the respondent/ plaintiffs namely the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company, Madras and Spencer and Company, Madras against M/s. Kalpaka Transport Company Limited having its office at Calicut praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 45,949.89 together with interest at 18% per annum and the costs on averments such as that M/s. Parke Davis (India) Limited carrying on business at Bombay entrusted with the defendant for carriage to Vishakapatnam to be delivered to the branch office of the second plaintiff under L.R. No. 893648 dated 9-12-1981 insuring the said consignment with the first plaintiff for all risks; that the defendant delivered the said consignment with damage and shortage and informed the same to the consignee by their letter dated ...
V.G.K. Murthy Vs. M/S. Vikas Plastic Electro Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)ALT(Cri)414
ORDER1. In both the above Crl.O.Ps the petitioner seeks directions to XVII Metropolitan Magistrate to furnish certified copies of the complaint in C.C.Nos. 6092 and 6091 of 2000 respectively, before the appearance of the accused. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received the summons in both the cases. When he applied for the certified copies of the complaint, the learned Judicial Magistrate rejected his request, stating that the accused is yet to appear before him. 3. Considering the circumstance in which the Crl.O.Ps. have been filed, I feel it is not necessary to issue a notice to the respondents. 4. Section 204 Crl.P.C recites as under: '204. Issue of Process: (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be- (a) a summons-case, he shall issue summons for the attendance of accused, or (b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he think...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. A.R. Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: [2001]249ITR239(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The Tribunal has rightly held that the amount which the appellant was allowed to receive against the bank guarantee pending disposal of the appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of the High Court enhancing the compensation for the land compulsorily acquired from the assessee, cannot be regarded as part of the taxable income or the wealth of the assessee as the money cannot be said to belong to the assessee until the Supreme Court, if it does, affirms the decision of the High Court.2. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. : [1986]161ITR524(SC) held that the compensation which was in dispute in the superior court could not be treated as income accruing to the assessee during the previous year.3. Counsel for the Revenue referred to the decision of the apex court in the case of CWT v. U. C. Mehatab (1998) 231 ITR 501 wherein it was held that the right to receive compensation constitutes an asset and th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramnath Goenka and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: [2001]252ITR653(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. All that the Tribunal has done is to provide relief which was consequential and flowed from its own finding in the appeal. The fact that such relief was provided does not in any way make that order of the Tribunal defective.2. The Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1998]229ITR383(SC) has held that it is open to the Tribunal to allow a new ground to be raised even if such ground had not been raised in the proceedings before the authorities below that of the Tribunal, in order to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee, provided the facts required for deciding the question raised are available in the assessment proceedings-There is no dispute that all the facts required for granting the consequential relief were part of the record of the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal in its elaborate order rightly referred to the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC ...
Swaminathan C.S. and ors. Vs. Simpson and Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR1037]; (2001)ILLJ141Mad; (2001)1MLJ288
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This writ appeal challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the employer quashing the order passed in a claim petition made by the employees under the provisions of Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. The appellant-employees are admittedly the workmen of the respondent-employer Simpson and Company Limited. The employer, for the accounting year June 1981 - May 1982, declared a bonus of 20% on the annual earnings of the employees under the Payment of Bonus Act. It was claimed that though all the petitioners were drawing a salary of Rs. 1000/- and more and even after calculating the deductions on account of their absence on loss of pay, their salary was more than Rs. 750/- per month. They further claimed that the calculation by the employer of their bonus was wholly incorrect inasmuch as instead of deducting the amount attributable to their absence or loss of pay from the t...
Sarada Vs. V. Satyamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: I(2001)DMC210; (2001)1MLJ224
A. Subbulakshmy, J.1. Unsuccessful petitioner, the wife who filed the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty is the appellant herein.2. The case of the petitioner is that she married the respondent on 26.1.1975 according to Hindu ceremonies and customs and their marriage was also registered in the Hindu Marriage Register maintained by the Marriage Registrar and they lived together at T. Nagar, Madras and then they moved to Defence Colony, Nandambakkam, Madras and a son was born to them on 20.3.1976. The petitioner contends that from 1975 to 1989 the petitioner and the respondent were living together and in the month of December/1986 the respondent deserted the petitioner without any cause and consent of the petitioner and the respondent abandoned his duties and thereafter the petitioner lived with her son in the Defence Colony, Nandambakkam and then she moved to Kasturiba Nagar, Adyar, Madras. The petitioner further contends that the conduct of the respondent is ag...
V. Seshammal and ors. Vs. Andal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-2000
Reported in: (2001)1MLJ700
1. The case is listed for admission. Defendants 2 to 13 are the appellants herein. The second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 8.11.1999 passed in A.S. No. 62 of 1999 on the file of learned Principal District Judge Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 503 of 1983 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, dated 29.7.1999.2. The short facts are:The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of her title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession on the ground that she became the owner of the property by virtue of the settlement deed executed by her husband, which is marked as Ex.A-8. According to her, the first defendant, who is a close relative, was allowed to be in permissive occupation of the property and since he had questioned her title, it became necessary for her to institute the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession. The first...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »