Chennai Court June 2001 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.
P. Sivasubramaniam Vs. S. Karthikumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2001
Reported in: AIR2001Mad370
M. Chockalingam, J.1. This suit has been filed for the issuance of a Probate in respect of the Last Will and Testament of late N. Savitri executed on 29-12-1992.2. Plaint averments are as follows : The defendants are the son and daughter of late Mrs. N. Savitri. Savitri died on 5-2-1994 at No. 7, Solaiappa Naicken Street, Madras-7. The testatrix executed her Last Will and Testament on 29-12-1992 at the said address in the presence of two witnesses, who are well known to the testatrix. Plaintiff is the sole executor appointed under the Will. The testatrix died leaving behind her the plaintiff-husband, first defendant-son and the second defendant-daughter. The testatrix bequeathed four items of movable properties mentioned in the Will. Plaintiff undertakes to duly administer the properties and credits of the testatrix. Hence the suit.2-A. The second defendant filed a written statement alleging that her mother has not executed any Will during her lifetime. Plaintiff is the father of D2. T...
Appa Servai P. Vs. Commissioner of Labour and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-2001
Reported in: (2002)ILLJ208Mad; (2001)3MLJ89
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J. 1. The petitioner, a member of the third respondent Trade Union, had filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent, the additional Registrar of Trade Union-I in his proceedings No. B-3/No. 3266/91, dated July 31, 1991 and quash the same. 2. Heard Mr. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 have also been served, but they have not filed their counter. The fourth respondent has been served, but he has neither entered appearance nor filed his counter. The fifth respondent has not been served. However, the non-service on the fifth respondent need not delay the disposal as the contesting respondents have been served. 3. According to the petitioner, he is a member of the third respondent Trade Union, which was started dur...
The Management of Eid Parry (India) Ltd., Ranipet, Rep. by Its General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2001
Reported in: [2001(88)FLR490]; (2001)2MLJ708
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Subject-matter of this appeal is the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court whereby the learned single Judge has rejected a W.M.P. filed by the original writ-petitioner/appellant herein, the Management of E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited, Ranipet. In that W.M.P., the appellant had sought to file a single writ petition against a common order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, dated 17.5.1999 in I.A. Nos.140 to 179 of 1998 in P.G.Case Nos.67 to 106 of 1999. Before we approach the controversy, it will be better to have a factual panorama.2. As many as 39 employees, they being respondents 2 to 41 herein, filed applications under Sec. 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. However, finding that the said applications were belated, subsequently applications to condone the delay came to be filed by all the 39 respondents. The said applications for condonation of delay were resisted by the writ petitioner and ultimately by a common order dated 17.5.1999, the...
Harikrishnan Vs. James Trinite and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-2001
Reported in: (2001)3MLJ291
Prabha Sridevan, J.1. The 4th defendant is the appellant.2. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No. 114 of 1999 for a declaration that the order passed in Crl.M.P.No. 234 of 1997, dated 17.11.1998 by the 2nd respondent herein is null and void and directing the 3rd respondent to cancel the birth certificate issued by him. The reason for the suit seems to be the apprehension of the 1st respondent that the appellant herein may defeat his promotional chances. It appears that the 1st respondent is in the Fire Service Department of the Government of Pondicherry and the Assistant Divisional Fire Officer is the next avenue of promotion for him. This is a single isolated post. The 1st respondent appears to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Fire Officer with effect from 28.4.1993. The appellant herein is a Station Officer in the Fire Service Department. Persons who belong to the Scheduled Caste and of Pondicherry origin are preferred in appointment and promotion to Scheduled...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Stanes Amalgamated Estates Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: [2001]251ITR861(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. The assessee is a company which carries on the business of growing and manufacturing of tea. It had claimed development allowance under Section 33A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1982-83 at the rate of Rs. 35,000 per hectare, the rate at which that allowance could be claimed for the assessment year 1982-83. That claim was negatived by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the asses-see had cleared and planted the estate in the years 1977-78 and 1979-80 and in those years the development allowance was allowable only at the rate of Rs. 12,500 per hectare.2. The assessee having taken up the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal which accepted the assessee's contention, the Revenue is now before us questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's view.3. The Tribunal while considering the question before it referred, inter alia, to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kilkotagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 729...
Bundy Tubing of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR286(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1. For the assessment year 1977-78, the Commissioner of Income-tax exercised revisional power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as in his opinion interests of the Revenue had been prejudiced by the order of the Income-tax Officer, allowing development rebate at the rate of amount of 25 per cent. of the investment. The Commissioner was of the view that such an allowance was at a rate higher than that at which could have been made. It had been found that installation of machinery for commencement of the manufacturing process prior to June 30, 1975, had not been established by the assessee satisfactorily before the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner, therefore, directed the Income-tax Officer to provide an opportunity to the assessee to place further materials and thereafter to decide the question as to whether the development rebate at a higher rate could be claimed by the assessee.2. The assessee, on appeal before the Tribunal, contended that the Com...
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Vs. Oswal Solven Extract ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: AIR2002Mad35
V. Kanagaraj, J.1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-2-1984 rendered in O.S. No. 4770/ 81 by the 11th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for the recovery of asum of Rs. 89,187/- with interest of Rs. 10,717/-, with a further interest at 12% per annum from the date of plaint to the date of decree and with a further interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation and with costs.2. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff Corporation owns a rice mill at Cheyyar as in other places of the State of Tamil Nadu that the plaintiff called for the tenders for the disposal of rice bran (raw rice and boiled rice) produced at Cheyyar for a period of three months from 1-1-1977 to 31-3-1977; that out of six tenders received, since the tender of the defendant was the highest, the plaintiff accepted the same as per its L. Dis. 2126/77 dated 20-1-1977; that according to the terms ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.T. Krishnamachary and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]256ITR82(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reads thus :'Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which payment has been ,or is to be made to any person referred to in Clause (b) of this subsection, and the Assessing Officer is of opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee or the benefit derived by or accruing to him therefrom, so much of the expenditure as is so considered by him to be excessive or unreasonable shall not be allowed as a deduction.'2. The completed assessment of the assessee, a partnership firm carrying on manufacturing and marketing of goods wholesale, was reopened by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1975-76 to consider the applicability of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act in respect of purchase of gripe-water made by it from Ta...
Cit Vs. Craigmore Plantations India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR447(Mad)
R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The assessee is a company which carries on the business of manufacturing and sale of tea. It had claimed development allowance under section 33A of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1982-83 at the rate of Rs. 35,000 per hectare, the rate at which that allowance could be claimed for the assessment year 1982-83. That claim was negatived by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee had planted and replanted the estate prior to 1-4-1982, and, therefore, the development allowance was allowable only at the rate of Rs. 12,500 per hectare.The assessee having taken up the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal which accepted the assessee's contention, the revenue is now before us questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's view.The Tribunal while considering the question before it, referred, inter alia, to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kilkotagiri Tea and Coffee Estate Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 729 which interpreted section ...
V. M. R. Trust Vs. Cit
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
Reported in: [2002]253ITR491(Mad)
R. Jayasiha Babu, J.The questions referred to us concern the assessment year 1982-83.The questions referred are as to whether the assessee-trust can claim the benefit of section 164(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even while it has failed to satisfy the requirements of section 164(1), proviso (ii) of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact that the settlor by her Will had created not one, but several trusts. Three family trusts were created by the Will dated 30-10-1978, executed by Smt. Lakshmiammal. The requirements of section 164(1), proviso (ii), of the Act is that 'the relevant income or part of relevant income is receivable under a trust declared by any person by will and such trust is the only trust so declared by him.'It is evident that on the plain language of the section, the claim of the assessee does not satisfy the requirement of the provision relied upon by the assessee. The claim by the assessee was that the beneficiaries, as also trustees of two of the trusts had agr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »