Chennai Court November 2002 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.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. India Meters Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)183CTR(Mad)283
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. TC No. 436 of 1999 is a reference under the IT Act, 1961, and TC Nos. 35 and 36 of 1998, are references made under Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.2. We first take up the reference under the IT Act as the answer to the question referred therein will also govern the question referred in the reference under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act.3. The question of law referred under the IT Act reads as under :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment had 'lost its foundation in view of the order of a Division Bench of the High Court remitting the matter to the Single Judge for fresh disposal.'4. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee is a public limited company incorporated in the year 1963. The assessee-company incurred a huge loss up to 30th Sept., 1974, and it was declared as a relief undertaking under the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provision) Act, 1969, and there was a...
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Covelong Beach Hotel (India) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: (2003)182CTR(Mad)461; [2003]262ITR544(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J. 1. The Tribunal has stated the case under Section 236(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and referred the following common question of law for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88.'On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to set off of business loss pertaining to asst. yr. 1978-79 in computing the taxable income for the assessment years beyond 1986-87 ?' 2. The question that arises in both the tax cases is whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward the because loss relating to the asst. yr. 1978-79 beyond the asst. yr. 1986-87. The issue has arisen because at the option of the assessee there was a change in the previous year with the result there was no assessment for the assessee for the asst. yr. 1983-84. The submission of the assessee was that the loss, in question arose in the asst. yr. 1978-79 should be taken into account while computin...
Cit Vs. India Meters Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-2002
Reported in: [2003]129TAXMAN771(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.T.C. No. 436 of 1999 is a reference under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and T.C. Nos. 35 and 36 of 1998 are reference made under Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.2. We first take up the reference under the Income Tax Act as the answer to the question referred therein will also govern the question referred in the reference under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act.3. The question of law referred under the Income Tax Act reads as under :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessment has lost its foundation in view of the order of a Division Bench of the High Court remitting the matter to the Single Judge for fresh disposal ?'4. The facts are not in dispute. The assessee is a Public Limited Company incorporated in the year 1963. The assessee-company incurred a huge loss up to 30-9-1974 and it was declared as a Relief Undertaking under the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertaking (Special Provision) Act, 1...
Thulasiammal, Vs. Kalyani,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC609
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The defendants 3 to 10, who lost in the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are the appellants herein. The respondents are the plaintiffs who are the legal representatives of P.L. Shanmugam who originally filed the suit, O.S. no. 310 of 1988. The suit was filed by P.L. Shanmugam who died during the pendency of the suit against one Soundarapandian who also died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were impleaded as defendants 3 to 10, who are the appellants herein. The suit in O.S. no. 310 of 1988 was filed for declaration and for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property and for mesne profits, both past and future. 2. Another suit in O.S. no. 291 of 1989 was filed for permanent injunction by Soundarapandian who died during the pendency of the suit. It is necessary to notice the facts of the suit in O.S. no. 310 of 1988 for the disposal of the appeal, as the appeal is filed only against the judgment and decree ren...
B. Ramachandra Adityan Vs. Educational Trustee Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: [2003]113CompCas334(Mad); [2003]41SCL385(Mad)
ORDERN.V. Balasubramanian, J.1. The first respondent is a company incorporated on 8-8-1958 as a private limited company, limited by shares. The authorised capital of the first respondent company is Rs. 20,000, divided into 2,000 shares of Rs. 10 each and its paid up capital is Rs. 3,335, divided into 667 shares of Rs. 10 each, out of which only Rs. 5 has so far been called for. The main objects of the company which are set out in the petition are as under:--(a) to declare, create, or establish, to manage or supervise to endow property upon, in trust, or institutions having charitable objects; and (b) to act as Trustees, Managers, Secretaries, Treasurers of any Trust or Institutions having Charitable objects. The first respondent company has other objects also. The petitioner referred to certain salient features of the memorandum and articles of association of the first respondent company and from that it is clear that no remuneration is payable to any Director from out of the funds re...
K. Dhanasekaran Vs. State by Inspector of Police, C.B., C.i.D.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-2002
Reported in: 2003(1)CTC223
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J. 1. Accused in Calendar Case No. 128 of 1993 on the file of the First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem is the appellant in the above appeal. Initially the appellant herein was chargesheeted under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. along with two others. Subsequently the case was tried only against the appellant and, by the impugned judgment, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, convicted him of the offences under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years under each of the two offences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the above appeal before this Court. For convenience I shall refer the appellant as accused.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The accused is a friend of one Kaliappa Gounder, father of one K. Prakash who has been examined as P.W.1. They are residing in Kumalankuttai, Erode. In 1991 when P.W.1 was enqu...
T.K. Venkatesan Vs. T.K. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ50
ORDER1. The petitioner and the respondent are the sons of late T.K.Krishna Iyengar, who died on 5.4.1965.2. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.485 of 1976 against the petitioner herein on the file of Sub Court, Salem praying the court to grant decree for partition and for separate possession of his half share in all the plaint schedule properties (Schedule A to D) and further direct the petitioner to account for all the amounts set out in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 and for all the incomes he had received from the family estate in the past and for all the incomes subsequent to the suit and direct payment to him of one half share in the total income.3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Salem, who tried the said suit, passed a decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession in respect of B and C Schedule properties and that the respondent/plaintiff is also entitled to past mesne profits in respect of B and C Schedule properties for a period ...
P.D. Palanivelu Vs. the Sub Registrar, (District Registrar's Cadre)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)1MLJ66
ORDERA.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. W.P.17296 of 1995 has been filed praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Proceedings dated 29.11.1995 on the file of the respondent and quash the same.2. W.P.1141 of 1996 has been filed praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to register the release deed dated 13.6.1995 and hand over the same to the petitioner and withdraw the notice dated 29.11.1995.3. Briefly it is the case of the petitioner that his brother by name P.D. Veeraraghavan and his son P.V. Krishnakumar executed a release deed dated 13.6.1995 in his favour releasing and relinquishing their undivided 1/3rd share in Door No. 25, Sadayappa Maistry Street, Madras - 79 bearing S.R. No. 6766, R.S. No. 1627 measuring 1215 sq.ft., for a consideration of 1,75,000/-. The petitioner paid a stamp duty of Rs.7,000/- thereon on the basis that it is a release deed executed by one co-sharer to and in favour of another co-sharer. The Sub...
Mrs. Rajamani, Vs. A. Ramar,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: I(2003)ACC265; 2003ACJ1058
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 485 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Tiruchirapalli are the appellants in the above appeal. In respect of death of one Manickam in a motor vehicle accident on 21-5-86, his wife, minor children have prayed for a compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. The Tribunal on the basis of the materials placed and after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the private bus, passed an award for Rs.47,900/- with interest at 12 per cent from the date of petition. Against the disallowed claim, the claimants have preferred the above appeal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the contesting second respondent-Insurance Company.3. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the appellants, after taking us through the oral and documentary evidence, has pleaded for higher compensation as claimed. On the other hand, Mrs. Kala Remech, learne...
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. N. Rangaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-2002
Reported in: 2003(26)PTC405(Mad)
B. Subhashan Reddy. C.J. 1. This Original Side Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge passed in O.A. No. 376 of 2001 in C.S. No. 298 of 2001. Defendant is the appellant having been aggrieved by the interim injunction granted by the learned single Judge. In the suit, three reliefs are sought for by the plaintiff, who is the respondent herein, i.e.:(a) for a declaration that he is the owner of the copyright in the drawings, diagrams and literature in Document No. 1 annexed to plaint ; (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant, their men, agents etc. from infringing his copyright in the drawings, diagrams and literature mentioned in the above annexed document; and (c) for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant, their men, agents etc. from using or adopting his copyright in the drawings, diagrams and literature mentioned in the above annexed document either wholly or in part either by making, representations to any third parties while can...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »