Chennai Court December 1972 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.
K.A. Mathialagan and ors. Vs. the Governor of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad198
1. By a notification dated 14-11-1972, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Article 174(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu Mr. K. K. Shah, prorogued the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly with effect from the forenoon of 15-11-1972, Mr. K. A. Mathialagan, the Speaker of the Assembly has filed W. P. 2968 of 1972 under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari, or order or direction in the nature of a writ to call for the records of the respondent, who is the Governor of Tamil Nadu, relating to G. O. Ms. 128 Legislative Assembly department, dated 14-11-1972, and quash the same and also pass such further or other order as this court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case. Mr. M. G. Ramachandran, Leader of the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and a member of the Assembly, has filed W. P. 2969 of 1972 with a similar prayer, W. P. 3010 of 1972 filed by Mr. K. T. K. Thangamani, also a member of the Legislature, is with a like ...
Muthuswamy and anr. Vs. V. Venugopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad339; (1973)1MLJ351
1. The defendants in O.S No. 9 of 1962 on the file of the District Judge, West Thanjavar,are the appellants. The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for an injunction restraining the defendants from reprinting a Tamil Drama called 'Kalangarai Deivam' in any form and for recovery of Rs. 14,000/- as damages and for certain other relief's. He claimed to have registered under the Copyrights Act, 1957 (Central Act 14 of 1957) his Tamil Novel 'Maruthiyin Kathal'. He contended that the first defendant adopting the theme, characterization, narration and development of the story as found in 'Maruthiyin Kathai' wrote under the caption ' Kalangarai deivam' in the form of a drama, which was published in series in Ananda Vikatan, a weekly Tamil magazine, of which the editor and Publisher was the second defendant. The substances of his complaint was that the defendants committed infringement of his copyright and prayed for the relief's indicated above. The defendants denied the plaintiff's clai...
N.S. Ramanathan Vs. B. Ratnavelu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad391; (1973)1MLJ433
ORDER1. The landlord is the petitioner. He applied for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant committed willful default in payment of rent and that he denied the title of the landlord. The tenant, in defense, submitted that he had an agreement of sale entered into with the second respondent before he sold the building to the petitioner who filed the petition before the Rent Controller and that he bona fide thought he had title to the property in question and therefore withheld the payment of rent and he was not guilty of denial of title of the landlord or of willful default. The Courts below accepted the contention of the tenant and dismissed the landlord's petition.2. The plea of the tenant is that he entered into an agreement with the second respondent for sale of the premise in which he was having his tea shop business. The agreement of sale was is 2-10-1968. The landlord (Petitioner herein) purchased the property from the second respondent on 27-8-1969. The tenant by ...
M. Varadarajulu Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1972
Reported in: [1974]97ITR474(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two writ petitions for the issue of writs of prohibition prohibiting the respondent. Income-tax Officer, from continuing the proceedings in pursuance of his notice dated March 7, 1967, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), in respect of assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The petitioner was carrying on business of purchase and sale of cinder. He was also a labour sub-contractor to the Madras Electricity System and others. For the assessment year 1960-61 he submitted a return showing a loss of Rs. 35,763. An assessment order was made on September 30, 1961, after readjusting some debits and ultimately determining the total loss of Rs. 5,696. For the assessment year 1961-62, the total income was determined at Rs. 54,918 under assessment order dated October 30, 1963, made under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In respect of assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the assessee had shown in his accounts a sum...
S. Doraiswami and ors. Vs. the Accountant-general and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ43
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. In these five cases a common question arises for consideration. The petitioners, who are employed in the office of the Accountant-General, Madras, pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other suitable order directing the Accountant-General, Madras, the first respondent, to fix their seniority on a certain basis. The second respondent in all these cases is the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, New Delhi. Respondents 3 to 7 in W.P. No. 2213 of 1970, who were juniors to the petitioner therein, have since been promoted over the head of the petitioner and assigned seniority above him. Hence, they have been impleaded. But those respondents are not parties in the other writ petitions.2. All the petitioners entered service in the Accountant-General's Office, as upper division clerks at different times. The promotion from the post of upper division clerk is to what is called Subordinate Accounts Service. The upper division clerk should pass an examinatio...
M. Varadarajulu Vs. Income-tax Officer, Hundi Circle Ii, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1972
Reported in: [1974]97ITR476(Mad)
RAMASWAMI J. - These are two writ petitions for the issue of writs of prohibition prohibiting the respondent, Income-tax Officer, from continuing the proceedings in pursuance of his notice dated March 7, 1967, issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), in respect of assessment yeas 1960-61 and 1961-62. The petitioner was carrying on business of purchase and sale of cinder. He was also a labour sub-contractor to the Madras Electricity System and others. For the assessment year 1960-61 he submitted a return showing a loss of Rs. 35,763. An assessment order was made on September 30, 1961, after readjusting some debits and ultimately determining the total loss of Rs. 5,696. For the assessment year 1961-62, the total income was determined at Rs. 54,918 under assessment order dated October 30, 1963, made under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In respect of assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the assessee had shown in his accounts a sum o...
Sivasankara Pillai and ors. Vs. Ponnuswami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad450; (1973)2MLJ122
1. Plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 are the appellants. The suit was filed by the appellants along with the second plaintiff for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 300 as damages. The defense was that though the second plaintiff, whose children are plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4, is the owner, first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the land under an oral lease granted by the second plaintiff. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property, that the defendants are in possession and that the oral lease set up by them was true. In regard to the oral lease in addition to the evidence of the first defendant the trial Court relied on the admission of the second plaintiff who was examined as P.W. 4 on commission. In appeal the lower appellate court confirmed the finding that the first defendant was in possession and the plaintiffs were not in possession on the date of suit. The low...
Subramani Vs. Kannappa Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad393; (1973)1MLJ81
1. The fourth defendant is the appellant in the Second appeal which arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale of the suit properties. The first defendant is the husband of the second defendant and the minor third defendant is the step-sister of the second defendant. Defendants 1 to 3 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the share of the second defendant as well as share of the third defendant to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. An advance of Rs. 500/- was received. A period of four months was fixed for completion. In executing the agreement the first defendant acted as guardian for his sister-in-law, the minor third defendant. When the plaintiff pressed the defendants to complete the transaction, the second defendant repudiated the agreement itself while on behalf of the third defendant, the objection was raised that the first defendant had no authority to represent her. On 17-10-1964, the second defendant so...
A. Vimalan Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1972
Reported in: [1974]94ITR21(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. One Appavoo Pillai made a gift of three buses to his son, Vimalan, the assessee, under a registered settlement deed dated June 17, 1967. Under that deed the value shown for the three buses was Rs. 20,000. The Gift-tax Officer found that the written down value of the buses on the date of the transfer was Rs. 31,688. He, therefore, estimated the value of the buses at Rs. 31,688. In addition he also estimated the value of the route permits on which the buses were plying at the time of the transfer at Rs. 75,000 and computed the gift-tax payable on that basis.2. The matter was taken in appeal by the assessee to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was contended by him that the route permits had not been transferred as they could not be transferred without the order of the Regional Transport Authority, and that, therefore, the value of the buses alone should be taken into account for computing the gift-tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this contention on...
Mahendrakumar Iswarlal and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1972
Reported in: [1974]94ITR65(Mad)
Kamanujam, J.1. As the points raised in all tbese petitions are the same, it is convenient to deal with them together. The facts are more or less common in all these cases and hence the facts in Writ Petition No. 954 of 1969 alone are set out hereunder.2. The petitioner therein was a partnership firm and it has been granted the status of a registered firm by order of the respondent dated March 17, 1969. The firm was dissolved in January, 1968, The firm submitted its return of income for the assessment year 1964-65, under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after obtaining extension of time from the respondent. On the basis of the said return the respondent by his order of assessment dated February 28, 1965, determined the total income at Rs. 1,03,021 and the tax payable thereon at Rs. 7,03.4. In the said order of assessment the respondent determined the interest payable by the firm under Section 139 at Rs. 3,868. The said interest has been calculated at 6 per cent, on the total...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »