Chennai Court July 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.
Sri Kaleeswari Metal Powder Private Limited, Sivakasi Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad41
ORDERD. Murugesan, J.1. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions are common, all the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.2. For better appreciation, the facts relating to W.P.No.14431 of 1994 may be referred to first in this order. The petitioner is Sri Kaleeswari Metal Powder Private Limited represented by its Managing Director, Sivakasi. The petitioner is the owner of the lands comprised in S.Nos.477/1 to 8, 479/1A, 1B and 2, 499, 500/2B1, 500/2B2, 500/5, 6, 8 and 9 at Injar Village, Virudhunagar. Before establishing the factory to manufacture aluminium powder at the above lands, the petitioner obtained permission from the first respondent panchayat on 6.6.91 for construction of factory buildings. Pursuant to the said permission, the petitioner completed the construction during February 1994. Before commencing the production, the petitioner applied for licence under the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 on 27.8.93. By a communicati...
Kabirdass Vs. Vinothambal,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ244
Prabha Sridevan, J. 1. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement of sale on 15.12.1983 in respect of some agricultural lands in Karaikal. Out of the sale consideration of Rs.27,191/-, Rs.5,000/- was paid and the balance was intended to be paid at the time of completing the sale transaction. The defendant was bound to obtain the encumbrance certificate and the title deeds at the time of the sale deed and also hand over possession immediately after the registration of the sale deed. In case the defendant failed to complete the sale transaction within the time stipulated i.e., six months from the date of agreement, the advance of Rs.5,000/- must be refunded together with a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. Briefly these are the terms of the agreement. On 30.5.1984 under Ex.A.2, the defendant issued a notice indicating to the plaintiff that he is ready with encumbrance certificate and the title deeds of the property and he is also ready to hand over possession of the prope...
Sivakami Vs. Thangavel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ608
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Sivakami, the second plaintiff in the suit, is the appellant herein. 2.The appellant along with her mother, Lakshmi Ammal filed the suit for partition of 4/6 share in the suit property and also for mesne profits, namely, the rental charges, till the delivery of possession of their share.3.During the pendency of the suit, Lakshmi Ammal, the first plaintiff, died. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court held that though the second plaintiff, the appellant herein is entitled to get 1/6 share in the suit property, she would be entitled to the said share not immediately, but only when the male heir, namely, the defendant chooses to partition the property, since the suit property happens to be the dwelling house. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the second plaintiff filed appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn, confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.4.The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:-...
Minor S. Vijayakumar (Died), Vs. R. Subbarayan, S/O C.M. Ramasamy Goun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ43
K. Sampath, J. 1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.148/83 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, filed the appeal. Pending appeal, the first appellant/first plaintiff died and his mother has come on record as the third appellant. The plaintiffs filed the suit as indigent persons for declaration that the alienations of A to C Schedule properties made by the first defendant father in the names of defendants 2 to 23 were not binding upon the joint family of the plaintiffs and the first defendant and consequential relief for possession of the said schedule properties to the plaintiffs' next friend, guardian and mother for past damages against defendants 2 t 23 to the tune of Rs.4-1/2 lakhs and for future damages. There is also an alternative prayer for partition and separate possession of the suit properties into three equal shares and allotment of two such shares to the plaintiffs.2. The case as set out in the plaint is as follows:The first defendant is the father of the plaintiffs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mrs. Rajamani Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]258ITR710(Mad)
V.S. Sirpukar, J.1. The question referred for our consideration is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the pension received by the assessee from the Malaysian Government could not be assessed as salary under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The question is referred at the instance of the Revenue. The Tribunal in its order relying on articles 18(3) and 18(5) of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation of Income entered into between the Government of India and the Government of Malaysia has held that the pension received was not taxable in India, since it was liable for tax in Malaysia, which was the Contracting State. There will be no question of its inviting taxation in India, which would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal has pointed out that the University of Malaysia is a statutory authority and as such would fall within the term 'Government' and, therefore, the pension paid by the University of Mal...
H. Kharak Bahadur Thapa Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad33
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.5078 of 1985 on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,100/- alleging that when he was working as a Watchman in the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., Madras, he sent 16 hundred rupee notes valuing Rs.1,600/- and 15 hundred rupee notes valuing Rs.1,500/- in two registered insured covers, to his wife Smt. Tikimaya Devi Thapa, who is living at West Nepal, from the G.P.O., Madras, and when the said covers were opened, only newspapers cuttings were found, but not currency notes. 3. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants contending that even though two insured letters were alleged to have been sent by the appellant/plaintiff were received in good condition with 'Lahaseal' intact and forwarded to the addressee - the wife of the appellant/plaintiff, who received the covers without any tampering, she found o...
Cit Vs. Rajamani Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN4(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.The question referred for our consideration is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the pension received by the assessee from the Malaysian Government could not be assessed as salary under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The question is referred at the instance of the revenue. The Tribunal in its order relying on articles 18(3) and 18(5) of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation of income entered into between the Government of India and Government of Malaysia, has held that the pension received was not taxable in India, since it was liable for tax in Malaysia, which was the contracting state. There will be no question of its inviting the taxation in India, which would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal has pointed out that the University of Malaysia is a statutory authority and as such, would fall within the term 'Government' and, therefore, the pension paid by the University of Malay...
Cit Vs. Dadha Plantations (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: (2002)177CTR(Mad)138
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.At the instance of the revenue, the Tribunal has stated the case and referred the following common questions of law with regard to the interpretation of section 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act in relation to the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 of the assessee'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no disallowance of interest should be made on interest payments made to directors and shareholders, on the credit balances in the current accounts held by them with the assessee in terms of section 40A(8) of the Act 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest payment made to directors and shareholders on their deposits with the assessee-company is excepted by the provisions of section 40A(8) on the basis of the ratio of the decision-laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Kalani Asbestos (P) Ltd...
Cit Vs. Madras Fertilizers Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]124TAXMAN349(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. The common question referred to us is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on roads and bridges and treating the same as building ?'2. The learned senior standing counsel appearing on behalf of the department very fairly states that the question is covered against the revenue by the decision in CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. : [1992]196ITR149(SC) .3. In this view, the question is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Janaki Loganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-2002
Reported in: [2002]257ITR620(Mad)
N.V. Balasubramanian, J1. The common question of law referred at the instance of the Revenue in relation to the assessment years of the assessee 1973-74 to 1977-78 is as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the pension paid to the assessee, a widow of the United Nations ex-official from the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund is exempt from income-tax ?'2. The respondent has not yet been served. However, we proceed with the tax case as the question is liable to be answered in favour of the assessee.3. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether the pension amount received by a widow of the United Nations ex-official from the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund is exempt from the levy of tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961. We find that the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. K. Ramaiah : [1980]126ITR340(KAR) , has held that the pension amount received by U.N. pensioners is exempt from tax. We are of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »