Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1993]77CompCas324(Mad)
Lakshmanan, J. 1. The first respondent company is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are brothers and son of one Balaswamy Naidu. The petitioners are the sons of late Guruviah Naidu. Guruviah Naidu and Balaswamy Naidu are brothers. The capital of the company is Rs. 1 lakh divided into 100 shares of Rs. 1,000 each. The amount of capital paid up or credited as paid up is Rs. 50,000 made up of 50 shares of Rs. 1,000 each. 2. The petitioners, who are the sons of Guruviah Naidu, have filed this petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners herein are the shareholders of the first respondent company holding between themselves 25 fully paid-up shares of Rs. 1,000 each out of the total issued and subscribed and paid-up capital of 50 shares of Rs. 50,000 each. They have been holding these shares ever since 1967. The petitioners thus held 50 per cent. of the issued capital of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1963Mad316
Anantanarayanan, J. 1. The main appeal (A. S. No. 93 of 1957) is by defendants 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the Court below in a suit by a minor represented by his next friend adoptive mother, instituted in forma pauperis for possession, and, alternatively, for partition of the suit properties. This appeal involves a question of considerable interest and significance, with reference to the Hindu Law of adoption as it stood prior to the recent enactments which have attempted a partial codification of the Hindu Law. That question, broadly stated, is whether, upon the theory of spiritual benefit, which is now the guiding principle in determining the validity of an adoption, the widow of a predeceased son (the daughter-in-law) could validly adopt to her husband, after the death of the father-in-law, who had himself left a widow alive on the date of the adoption. There is a related question whether, assuming such an adoption to be valid, the adopted heir (the minor plaintiff in this case) could upon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1960Mad85
Rajamannar, C.J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Madurai, in Election Petition No. 86 of 1957 filed in the following circumstances. In the recent general elections to the Madras State Assembly four candidates went to the polls to contest the seat for the Karaikudi Constituency in the Ramanathapuram district. There were others who had filed their nomination papers but they withdrew before the due date. Polling took place on 1-3-1957. The four candidates obtained votes as under:1. Sri M. A. Muthiah Chettiar 24,2232. Sri Sa. Ganesan 23,3653. Sri R. M. Subbiah 2,3484. Sri U.P.L. Venkatachalam Chettiar 1,171Muthiah Chettiar having secured the largest number of votes was declared duly elected on 5-3-1957. Sa Ganesan filed an election petition before the Election Commission on 15-4-1957 and it was referred to the Election Tribunal at Madurai for trial. Muthiah Chettiar was the sole respondent and the prayer was for an order declaring the election of the return...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1985]153ITR109(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question of law has been referred to : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the return filed on October 5, 1968, could be construed as a return under section 139(5) and the assessment made on September 22, 1969, for the assessment year 1964-65 is not barred by limitation ?' 2. The relevant facts are in a very short or narrow compass. The assessee is a firm, which was served with a notice under s. 139(2) of the Act on July 20, 1964, in relation to the assessment year 1964-65, calling for the submission of the return of its income. The return should have been filed on or before August 19, 1964. The assessee filed the return on December 14, 1964, disclosing an income of Rs. 26,593. On October 5, 1968, it filed a revised return admitting an income of Rs. 27,900. The assessment was completed on September 22, 1969. 3. In the appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1981(8)ELT738(Mad)
ORDER1. This suit which was originally filed as O.S. No. 50 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, had been ordered to be transferred to the file of this court by Natarajan J. as per the order dated 28-2-1978 made in Appln No. 810 of 1978. Accordingly the suit was withdrawn from the Subordinate Judge, Chingelput, and taken on the file of this court as C.S. No. 199 of 1978. 2. The plaint allegations are as follows - The plaintiff 'Light Roofing Ltd.', is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 125 Lloyds Road, Madras 86, and its factory is situate at Chittipunyam village in Chingleput District. 3. The first defendant is the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore. The second defendant is the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kancheepuram and the third defendant is the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 4. The plaintiff had been manufacturing at its factory at Chettipura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1997]224ITR9(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J.1. In pursuance of the direction given by this Court in TCP Nos. 185 and 129 of 1981, dt. 2nd November, 1981, the Tribunal referred the following two common questions in the case of two of the assessees, for the asst. yr. 1975-76, for the opinion of this Court, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 : Tax Case No. 1258/1982 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the price paid by the assessee for the acquisition of five vehicles from Seethapathy Transports (P) Ltd., at a consideration which is admittedly lower than the true market value, is not a benefit within the meaning of s. 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 52,600 on the ground that the provisions of s. 2(24)(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 are not applicable in the assessee's case ?' Tax Case No. 1259/1982 : '1. Whether, on the facts and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(3)CTC366
ORDER1. This Court ordered notice of motion to the respondents and the respondents have also filed a counter, besides produced the documents. 2. Common arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for petitioners as well as Mr. D. Murugesan, Special Government Pleader and Mrs. T. Kokilavani, Government Advocate for the respondents. It is sufficient to refer to the facts relation to one of the writ petitions. 3. W.P.Nos. 15883, 15884, 11952, 11953, 12495, 12496, 12497,12498, 15499 to 15510 of 1997 relate to deeds of conveyance executed in favour of the writ petitioners and they have been respectively registered as deeds of saleby the third respondent as document 3159, 3166, 3170, 3158, 3161, 3169, 3171, 3162, 3178, 3177, 3175, 3174, 3173, 3172, 3168, 3167, 3160, 3165, 3164 and 3163 of 1995. Admittedly, the registration of these documents has been completed. 4. W.P.No.13660 of 1997 relates to a deed of compromise in respect of P.No.55 of 1997. 5. W.P.Nos. 15885, 15886, 12589, 12590, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1980CENCUS505D; 1983(12)ELT484(Mad)
Varadarajan, J.1. These writ petitions have been filed by some manufacturers of sugar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. W.P. No. 436 of 1977 has been filed by Messrs Sakthi Sugars Ltd, Coimbatore, for the issue of a writ of certiorified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bhovani, relating to his order dated 8-6-1976 in O.C. No. 2124 of 1976 in relation to the grant of excise duty rebate under the Government of India's notification dated 12-10-1974, for the sugar year 1974-75, and quashing that order and directing the second respondent and the first respondent, the Union of India, represented by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, to give credit to a sum of Rs . 20,64,531-23 in the petitioner's account P.L.A. No. 29 (Sugar).2. W.P. No. 550 of 1977 is by Messrs Aruna Sugars Ltd, Pennadar, South Arcot district, for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
PRAYER: T.C.(Appeal) Nos.579 to 581 of 2005 are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.8.2002 made in I.T.A.Nos.46 to 48/Mds/2001 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench - Assessment Years 1995-96 to 1997-98.JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN,J.)1. The Revenue is on appeal as against the order of the Tribunal, relating to the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98.2. The following are the substantial questions of law raised in these Tax Case Appeals:(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the re-opening of assessment by the assessing officer for the years 1995-96 & 1996-97 was bad in law?(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation?(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad690
1. These three appeals involve a common question of law and arise out of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of certiorari or for appropriate writs to quash the orders made by the Government under Section 13 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, exempting certain buildings from the provisions of the said Act on the ground that the said section is inconsistent with Article 14 and therefore void under Article 13 of the Constitution.2. Section 13 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act, runs thus:"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, by notification in the Port St. George Gazette, exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this Act."This Act is the latest of the series of Acts and Orders successively passed for the regulation ot the lease of buildings and for control of rent in the State of Madra...
Tag this Judgment!