Chennai Court October 1973 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons (P.) Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1973
Reported in: [1974]95ITR428(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in the purchase and sale of motor vehicles, spare part, and accessories and agricultural implements besides having a number of workshops where servicing and repairs to vehicles as well as body building is done. The company has its head office at Madurai with a number of branches in various places. For the assessment year 1958-59, corresponding to the year ending December 31, 1957, the assessee returned a total income of Rs. 43,40,870. In arriving at this income the assessee claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 39,696 under ' welfare expenses '. This represented the amount spent in purchasing 6 acres 991/2 cents of land in Madurai in the name of the District Collector, Madurai, for the purpose of constructing houses for the company's workers by the Government under the subsidised industrial housing scheme sponsored by the State Government. The assessee claimed that this amount was an allowable deduction as a r...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sankararamakrishnan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ475
ORDERM. M. Ismail, J.1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are two Advocates of this Court and the common respondents are the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Madras-9 and the Director of Legal Studies, Law College, Madras-1. The petitioner in the former writ petition was appointed as a part-time Lecturer in the Law College, Madras, under rule 10 (a) (i) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services, by G.O.Ms. No. 1428, Education Department, dated 18th August, 1970, while the petitioner in the latter petition was appointed in the same capacity under the same rule by G.O.Ms. No. 1834, Education Department, dated 25th October, 1971. By a Memorandum No. 35097-F2/73-7 Education dated 17th September, 1973, the first respondent herein terminated the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of relief and it is to quash this order that the two writ petitions have been filed by the...
Tag this Judgment!B. Tiruvalloor Pillai Vs. Seshadri Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad282
1. The plaintiff who failed in both the courts below is the appellant. He filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by him or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the same. The suit properties are comprised in S. No. 200/6 of an extent of 2-66 acres and S. No. 201 measuring 0-15 cents. The first defendant is the purchaser of the suit properties in the revenue sale and the second defendant is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector who ordered the revenue sale. Defendants 3 to 5 are the brothers of the plaintiff and the 6th defendant is his wife. 2. The suit properties belonged absolutely to one Kanakavalli Ammal, the plaintiff's mother. She had borrowed a loan of Rs. 2,000 from the 2nd defendant for the purchase of an oil engine, the loan being repayable in 10 monthly instalments on the security of the first item of the suit properties. Ex. B-9 dated 8-3-1954 ...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Council, Through Its Commissioner Vs. the Sree Meenakshi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1973
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ59
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Municipal Council, Madurai, the plaintiff before the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is the appellant before us. The suits were filed against the defendant Sree Meenakshi Mills Limited, Madurai, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,232-29 representing the property tax which still remained due and payable by the Mills for the first and second half years of 1958-59, 1959-60 1960-61, 196 -62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and the first half year of 1964-65. In the plaint it is seen that the municipality has given credit to the taxes paid by the Mills. In the written statement the case of the Mills was that as regards B schedule properties, which are the properties in which the Mills and its precincts are situate, the levy is not based on any reasonable hypothesis, but on the other hand it is the result of caprice and arbitrariness. The other contention of the Mills was that the value of the land in which the factory precincts are situate ought not to be valued at 75 paise per squar...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Sali Vs. Mary Gonrath Fernando and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad286
1. An interesting question of law arises in this Letters Patent appeal, which is directed against a second appellate judgment of this court, and it arises under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this appeal, instituted a suit in the court of the District Munsif, Tuticorin, for the recovery of moneys due under a promissory note executed by the defendant, who was a resident of Nagarcoil. The plaintiff alleged that the promissory note was executed at Tuticorin and that consequently the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the Tuticorin court. The suit itself was instituted on the last day of limitation. The defendant appeared in the Tuticorin of which was that inasmuch as the promissory note had been executed at Nagarcoil and not at Tuticorin and he himself was residing at Nagarcoil, no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the Tuticorin court. As many as 7 issues were framed upon the pleadings a...
Tag this Judgment!L.C. Balakrishnan and Bros. (P.) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Regional Transp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad381
Kailasam, J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, J. in W. P. Nos.2797, 2798, 2799 of 1973. These matter relate to the legality of a levy of fees for using the bus stand at Vedasandur, any can be dealt with by a common order.2. Section 91(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act enables the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act, and clause (e) of sub-section (1) of that section empowers the State Government to make rules for the maintenance and management of parking places and stands and the fees if any, which may be charged for the use. In pursuance of this rule-making power, the State Government frame Rule 268 by G. O. Ms. No.2358 Home dated 18-7-1966, substituting Rule 267 Rule 268(a) provides that the local authority shall apply to the Regional Transport authority for approval of any scheme for construction of a public stand for any class of public service vehicles. It is provided that t...
Tag this Judgment!L.G. Balakrishnan and Brothers (P.) Limited and ors. Vs. the Regional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ176
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. These Writs Appeals are filed against the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, J., in Writ Petitions Nos. 2797, 2798 and 2799 of 1973. These matters relate to the legality of a levy of fees for using the bus stand at Vedasandur, and can be dealt with by a common order.2. Section 91 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act enables the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act, and clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of that section empowers the State Government to make rules for the maintenance and management of parking places and stands and the fees, if any, which may be charged for their use. In pursuance of this rule-making power, the State Government framed Rule 268 by G.O. Ms. No. 2358, Home, dated 18th July, 1966, substituting Rule 268. Rule 268 (a) provides that the local authority shall apply to the Regional Transport Authority for approval of any scheme for construction of a public stand for any class of public ser...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Madras Vs. P.G. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad288
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for review of the judgment of this court made in W. P. 230 of 1971, dated 28-8-1973.2. The ground on which the petitioner seeks to get the order in question reviewed is set out here below.The petitioner further submits that due to inadvertence, the respondent in the writ petition was not able to produce the abovementioned unreported decision on the date of hearing of the writ petition. The respondent did not urge anything against any procedural aspect of the enquiry. Hence if the decision has been placed before this Honourable Court, the writ petition should have been dismissed.' Admittedly, the judgment of the Division Bench (Veeraswami, C. J. and Gokulakrishnan J.) in W. A. 188 of 1967 (Mad)(L. Sivanarayanalal v. Corpn. of Madras, represented by its Commissioner and another) has not been brought to my notice. The petitioner pleaded 'inadvertence' for his not producing the judgment of the Division Bench. I am afraid, under Order 47, Rule 1 'inadvertence' i...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Narayana Raja Vs. O. Rm. M. Sv. M. Meyyappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad37
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. The petitioner in E. A. 716 of 1969, in E.A. 157 of 1969, in E. P. No. 119 of 1967, in O. S. No. 166 of 1965 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is the appellant. This appeal has come to be filed in the following circumstances.2. The first respondent in the said petition filed the suit O. S. No. 166 of 1965 against the appellant for recovery of amounts due to him on a mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree and a final decree in his favour. The fourth respondent, who was the second defendant in the suit, was a subsequent encumbrancer and on payment of necessary court-fees by him, he was also given a decree for the amount due to him. Consequent, on the death of the first respondent, the second and the third respondents, got themselves implead-ed as legal representatives of the first respondent, and brought the mortgaged items for sale in court auction. Certain items of properties, which were the hypothecs, were brought to sale in court auc...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Narayana Raja Vs. O.Rm.M.Sv.M. Meyyappa Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ116
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The petitioner in E.A. No. 716 of 1969 in E.A. 157 of 1969, in E.P.No. 119 of 1967 in O.S. No. 166 of 1965, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is the appellant. This appeal has come to be filed in the following circumstances.2. The first respondent in the said petition filed the suit O.S. No. 166 of 1965, against the appellant for recovery of amounts due to him on a mortgage and obtained a preliminary decree and a final decree in his favour. The fourth respondent who was the second defendant in the suit, was a subsequent encumbrancer and on payment of necessary Court-fees by him, he was also given a decree for the amount due to him. Consequent on the death of the first respondent, the second and the third respondents, got themselves impleaded as legal representatives of the first respondent and brought the mortgaged items for sale in court-auction. Certain items of properties, which were the hypotheca, were brought to sale in Court-aucti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »