Chennai Court October 1975 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.
Warwick Estates Syndicate Vs. Additional Agricultural Income-tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR414(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This is a petition by the assessee, a firm of partnership. Its return for 1974-75 was due by June 30, but time was granteduntil August 15. On August 26, a provisional return, as it is called, was made and an order followed on that basis under Section 18 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act on September 6, 1974. Another return containing, as we are told, correct particulars was filed on October 29, 1974, accompanied by a request for a revised order of assessment, also of a provisional character. The two returns involved a difference of a few thousands of rupees, which, if taken into account for purposes of a provisional order, would result in lesser provisional tax. The Income-tax Officer concerned, however, declined to make such an order and this was on November 28, 1974. He said, after referring to his order under Section 18(1) and (6), that a provisional tax had been assessed on the basis of the return made in the first instance and that it could not be altered or adju...
C.S. Hari Rao and N. Balasubramanian Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ88
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In these two writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash G.O. Ms. No. 716, Education, dated 6th May, 1974. These petitioners were originally appointed as lower division clerks in the then office of the Director of Public Instruction, Madras. They were later promoted as Upper Division Clerk (now designated as Assistants), The next promotion for these petitioners was to the post of Superintendent. In the meanwhile the office of the Director of Public Instruction was bifurcated in 1965 as Directorate of School Education and Directorate of Collegiate Education.2. In the Education Department, the office of the then Director of Public Instruction was treated as one unit for purposes of appointments, transfers and promotions and the subordinate offices situate outside the city of Madras were treated as a separate unit. The result of it was the appointments, promotions and transfers arising in one unit were made from among the personnel ...
Mohamed Ayisha Nachiyar Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1975
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas653(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner's premises was searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate on June 24, 1973, under Section 19D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Exchange Regulation Act, and some documents including savings bank account and fixed deposit receipts for Rs. 50,000 had been seized. The petitioner issued a cheque on the third respondent bank on June 26, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 2,000 but the third respondent refused to honour it on the ground that her accounts were blocked under the Regulation Act by the second respondent on July 6, 1973. In this writ petition the petitioner questions the validity of the said blocking of the petitioner's bank accounts by the first and second respondents on the following grounds :(1) That either of the respondents Nos. 1 or 2 had no power under the provisions of the said Act to block the bank accounts.(2) Section 20(3) of the Exchange Regulation Act under which the second respondent has purp...
Kandaswamy Gounder Vs. Vannimuthu Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ146
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner herein is a cultivating tenant. The respondents purchased the land and filed a petition for eviction on the ground of waste. Notice was sent through post and it came back with an endorsement 'refused'. The case was called on 8th February, 1972 and then it was adjourned to 22nd February, 1972. On 22nd February, 1972 the respondent in the eviction petition was called absent and he was set ex parte. An order of eviction was passed evicting the respondent forthwith. The respondent in this petition filed E.P. No. 6 of 1972 for execution. On 2nd August, 1972 the Tahsildar came and took forcible possession from the petitioner in this civil revision petition. Within two days thereafter the petitioner filed O.P. No. 20 of 1972 to set aside the ex parte order and also another petition for setting aside the order of eviction. On 14th August, 1972 the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Coimbatore, dismissed these petitions on the ground that delivery h...
K.G. Mathew Vs. Chairman-cum-managing Director, National Issurance Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1975
Reported in: (1976)ILLJ27Mad
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner entered the field of General Insurance in December, 1941 as an Assistant in the Fire Department of the New India Assurance Company Limited and continued in that employment till July, 1943. Thereafter, he worked in various Insurance Companies. At the time of the nationalisation of General Insurance by the Government of India, in May. 1971 the petitioner was working as a Senior Branch Secretary of the General Assurance Society Limit-ed at Madras, he having been appointed to that post on 8-9-1969. After the nationalisation of the general insurance business the petitioner was asked to submit his bio-data for the purpose of fixation of his proper rank in the new set up. The petitioner submitted his bio-data ; but the work of categorisation, however, was not completed by the Committee constituted for the purpose. In the meanwhile, the Government of India thought out a new scheme under which four subsidiary companies were accorded the status of beginning or...
Corporation of Madras Vs. P.R. Ramachandriah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1975
Reported in: AIR1977Mad25
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Corporation of Madras is the appellant. It figured as the third defendant in O. S. No. 59 of 1968 on the file of the First Additional City Civil Judge, Madras. Six plaintiffs claiming themselves to be members of a Sabha known as Arunadhateya Maha Sabha, filed the present suit for a declaration that the second defendant, who was its quondam President, cannot gift away the property belonging to the Sabha to the Corporation of Madras and that such a gift made by the second defendant or the Sabha to the Corporation of Madras would not bind the plaintiffs as members of the Sabha. The first and the second defendants filed a written statement contending that the Sabha is not in existence as it was dissolved in 1966, that the property was purchased by the second defendant from his own funds and that under a valid resolution dated 9-7-1962 the property was gifted to the Corporation of Madras for running a maternity and child welfare center and a dispensary. The Corpora...
Durai Knitting Co., by Its Partner R. Duraiswami Vs. E. Ramasubramania ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ351
V. Sethuraman, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting question as to whether there could be a suit for possession against a tenant let in by a usufructuary mortgagee of the property, whose mortgage has been redeemed. The facts are in a short compass. The suit property which is a shop building situated within the Municipal limits of Tirunelveli, belonged to one Nellaiappa Pillai. He usufructuarily mortgaged the same in favour of the first defendant under a deed of usufructuary mortgage, dated 2nd July, 1965 which is marked as Exhibit B-1 in the suit, for a sum of Rs. 3,000 redeemable on or before 1st July, 1970. The mortgagor Nellaiappa executed a sale deed. Exhibit A-1, dated 31st July, 1967 for a sum of Rs. 7,750 in favour of the plaintiff. Out of the sale consideration, a sum of Rs. 3,000 was reserved with the plaintiff to discharge the othi debt due under Exhibit B-1. The plaintiff offered the othi amount due under Exhibit B-1 to the first defendant and asked him to hand over...
Murthi Gounder Vs. Karuppanna Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad302; (1976)1MLJ286
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. This revision petition is against the order of the learned District Munsif of Sankari refusing to allow an application filed by the revision petitioner-first defendant under Order 8, Rule 9 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to receive the additional written statement.2. The suit filed by the respondent was for declaration of his title to the suit property which comprises of wet lands and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same.3. The suit was resisted by the defendants, of whom the fifth defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 1 to 4. In that written statement, it is categorically admitted in paragraph 3 that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and Muthuswamy and they are in enjoyment of the same. But later, on, it is stated that about seven, months prior to the filing of that written statement, the entire villagers of Thanamuthiyar Village in Kuru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›