Chennai Court September 2002 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)179CTR(Mad)477
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J.1. The two questions referred to us for our consideration, at the instance of the Revenue are:-1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that depreciation on guest house should not be disallowed under Section 37(4) 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 incentives given by the Government in the form of higher free sale quota of sugar towards excise duty and purchase tax should be treated as capital receipt and hence no tax was exigible thereon?' The Assessment Year is 1989-90.2. We may take the second question first. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the assessee Mr. V. Ramachandran, that a similar question has already been considered and answered against the Revenue in two decisions of this Court as also in the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax -vs- Balarampur...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Southern Roadways Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)181CTR(Mad)340; [2004]265ITR404(Mad)
K. Raviraja padian, J. The question referred to at the instance of the Revenue is : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 5,25,000 estimated by the assessee during the accounting year on repairs and maintenance of motor car should not be considered for disallowance under Section 37(3A) without considering whether it included any expenditure on drivers' salary and the like which is disallowable under Section 37(3A) ?' 2. The facts from which the abovesaid question arose are as follows :The assessee is a company engaged in the business of transportation of goods.For the asst, yr. 1984-85, the assessee-company debited in the P&L; a/c a sum of Rs. 13,17,723 under Section 37(3A). The said expenses included car running expenses of Rs. 2,62,532 comprising of fuel, lubricants and motor vehicle tax.The AO made an estimation of an equal amount to the car running expenses and arrived at a figure of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Moopar Vs. Ramaswami Moopanar and Karuppa Moopar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: II(2003)BC662; (2002)3MLJ808
A.K. Rajan, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in this Appeal.2. The plaintiff-1st respondent has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.31,650/-, based on a promissory note. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendants are relatives. On 27.07.1982, defendants-1 and 2 received a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay it with 12% interest thereon. In spite of repeated demands, the amount was not repaid. The defendants are not entitled for any of the reliefs under the Debt Relief Act. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.31,650/- with interest.3. The defendants filed a written statement, stating that they never received Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff. The promissory note is not real. They received only Rs.10,000/- and for the amount, they signed on a blank promissory note and that has been filled up by the plaintiff subsequently. In fact, for having received Rs.10,000/-, the plaintiff was pu...
Tag this Judgment!Selur Mines, Rep. by Its Partner, T. Socratis Vs. the Government of Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad188
ORDERV.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Petitioner herein challenges a letter dated 20-4-1995, sent by the Secretary to the Government, Environment and Forest Department to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras. In pursuance of this letter, the Section Officer has requested as under:'2. I am, therefore, to request you to issue necessary immediate instructions to all District Forest Officers and Conservators of Forests to forward all the pending and future applications with basic reports relating to grant/renewal of mining leases in forest lands to the Government in Industries Department through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Director of Geology and Mining along with the technical report obtained from the concerned Assistant Director/Assistant Geologist to enable the Industries Department to arrive at appropriate decision and thereafter to obtain prior approval of Central Government in terms of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. A copy of the D.O. Letter ci...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Karuppan Vs. Potti Ammal (Deceased) and Velu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ810
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. Periya Karuppan, the appellant herein is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent Potti Ammal. Having lost in both the Courts below, the defendant has filed this second appeal. 2. Potti Ammal, the first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the tenant of the land alone and owner of the superstructure in the schedule property and entitled to the benefits and rights under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Ultimately, the suit was decreed. The appellate Court in the appeal filed by the defendant would as well confirm the said decree in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the second appeal. 3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows: 'The plaintiff is the tenant of the land mentioned in the suit schedule. She constructed a hut therein. She was paying rents for the land to one Ambika, t...
Tag this Judgment!M. Appavoo Vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Rep. by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR104]; (2002)IIILLJ1032Mad
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the respondent in Office Order No.704/Nir 11/Ma.Ko.2/99 dated 8.3.2000 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to provide the petitioner night duty in the post of Stores Helper or in any other suitable post involving light work with continuity of service and pay protection.2. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner filed W.M.P. No.19186 of 2002 seeking for directions, which are identical to the relief prayed for in the writ petition. Hence, with the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.3. Heard Mr.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and Mrs.Kala Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.4. The case of the petitioner leading to the writ petition could be summarised briefly. The petitioner joined the respondent Corporation, a State...
Tag this Judgment!S. Shanmugha Velayudaswamy Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: AIR2003Mad57; (2002)3MLJ538
ORDERS. Jagadeesan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the first respondent dated 13-12-1994 in G.O.D. No. 313 Local Administration and Water Supply Department where-under relaxation was granted to the fourth respondent's building from the application of certain building rules.2. The petitioner has filed O.S. No. 161 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif. Pollachi seeking a decree for mandatory injunction directing the fourth respondentherein to demolish the superstructure put up by him on the ground that the same is in contravention of the building regulations and also without prior permission of the authorities. The said suit was dismissed on 17-8-1994 on the ground that the matter was pending before the Government for relaxation.3. Against the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal in A. S. No. 130 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Udumalpet, which was also dismissed on 31-7-1998. After disposal of the suit by the trial Court, the first...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Thillai Natarajamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ629
K. Sampath, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No.350/83 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit for redemption, partition and future profits on the following averments:The suit property belonged to him and his deceased brother Subbian Chettiar. Subbian Chettiar sold his rights to the appellant/defendant. On 10-10-1122 M.E., corresponding to 24-5-1947, the plaintiff executed an othi in favour of one Bagavathi Amma. On 11-11-1124 M.E., corresponding to 25-6-1949, the defendant obtained an assignment from Bagavathi Amma. The plaintiff is an agriculturist. The first item is agricultural land. The second item is garden land. As per Act 4 of 1938, the othi debt got fully discharged on 10-11-1154 M.E., corresponding to 25-6-1979. The plaintiff has become entitled to recover possession of the property. As he had 30 years for filing the suit, the suit was in time. The plaintiff could get redemption of the...
Tag this Judgment!Ayeesha Bibi, Vs. S. Mohamed Ibrahim,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: (2002)3MLJ695
M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. Having lost before both the Courts below, they have filed this second appeal.2. The appellants, as plaintiffs, filed the suit for declaration, partition and separate possession of their share in 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and for other reliefs.3. According to the plaintiffs, originally one Mohammed Meeran Rowther filed a suit in O.S. No.39 of 1958 for partition and separate possesion. On 9-10-1964, a preliminary decree was passed, whereunder, it was declared that the said Mhoamed Meeran Rowther would be entitled to 1/5 share in all the suit properties, namely, 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties.4. The defendants in the suit O.S. No.39 of 1958 filed appeal before the appellate Court in A.S. No.39 of 1965. Since the first plaintiff died in that suit on 10-7-1965, the other plaintiffs were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. During the pendency of the appeal, one Khader Mohammed Ibra...
Tag this Judgment!Rediffusion - Dentsu, Young and Rubicam Private Ltd., (Previously Know ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-2002
Reported in: [2003]114CompCas721(Mad); 2003(1)CTC74
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Petitioning creditor has filed the above Company Petition under Section 433 (e) and (f) read with Section 434 and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 to wind up the respondent company.2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The respondent is Solidaire India Limited, a company having an authorised share capital of Rs. 10 Crores consisting of 1 Crore equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The issued, subscribed and paid-up capital of the respondent is Rs. 654.26 Lakhs. The objects of the respondent company are to manufacture and sale of black and white and colour Television Sets, manufacture of sub-assemblies and electronic tuners, and marketing audio and video products, etc. The respondent appointed the petitioner by its letter dated 11.4.94 as its exclusive advertising agency. Pursuant to the said letter of appointment, the petitioner provided advertising services to the respondent including advertising in Newspapers, Television, Radio, Creative Art ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »