Chennai Court July 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.
Sakunthala Ammal and anr. Vs. Pattammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ296
S. Mohan, J.1. The legal representative of the 2nd defendant is the appellant in the Second Appeal.2. The short facts are as follows: One Ammani Samanra Goundar had a concubine by name Nachiammal who was the sister of one Gopala Goundar. Samanna Goundar had a son by name Dharmalingam, the husband of the plaintiff and they had three sons, defendants 3, 4 and 5. Gopala Goundar had two sons, the defendants 1 and 2. The suit property is a wet land of an extent of 791/2 cents out of 1-59 acres comprised in S.N. 94 in Ambalur village. According to the plaintiff, it belonged to Samanna Goundar and he settled the same on 5th April, 1940 in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants 3 to 5 with a direction to get possession after the lifetime of Nachiammal. The said Nachiammal died about 3 months before the filing of the suit and Gopala Goundar her brother also died and defendants 1 and 2 are in possession. Hence the suit for declaration of joint title of plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 and als...
Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Pushpam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad252; (1976)1MLJ276
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of Ramaprasada Rao, J., who held that co-option of a woman member to a Panchayat under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (XXXV of 1958) is an election, though it took the form of a resolution of the Panchayat. On that view, he held that the Inspector of Panchayats acted in excess of his jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act in rescinding the resolution. We find, ourselves in agreement with this decision of the learned Judge.2. This case relates to Pechikulam Panchayat, Madurai District. The Panchayat had a strength of seven, each, of whom was elected. But there was no woman among them. In accordance with Section 15 (4), the first respondent was by a majority resolution of the Panchayat at a meeting held on 25th September, 1970 co-opted. On a complaint made by one of the members of the panchayat, the Inspector, in exercise of his powers under Section 147 cancelled the resolution on 29th December, 1970. The ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.S.T.V. Neethimohan and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1975
Reported in: [1977]107ITR585(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business of manufacture and sale of agarbathis. The relevant assessment year is 1962-63, the previous year ending on March 31, 1962. Most of the sales were effected by the assessee through vans. Goods were taken in these vans and fresh supplies to these vans were made through public carriers. The supplies to the vans were debited to the accounts of each van maintained for that purpose. The assessee did not have a stock account to record the supplies sent through the vans nor did it have a manufacturing account or a stock register for the issue of raw materials.2. The van salesman remitted monies periodically. In the relevant year, the Income-tax Officer noticed that on a number of occasions, the cash balances with the van salesman was not sufficient to make remittances recorded in the books. On April 15, 1961, the cash available was Rs. 207 while the amount remitted was Rs. 5,000. Similarly, on June 11, 1961, the cash avai...
M. Sultan Beevi Alias Chinna Pillai and ors. Vs. Uthumanummal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ325
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This petition under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to transpose the second respondent in S.A. No. 412 of 1975 as the third appellant in the above said, second appeal. The suit was filed against the petitioner herein and also the two appellants in the above second appeal for redemption. The petitioner herein is no other than the son of the first appellant and the brother of the second appellant. The decree is a joint decree and it is executable against the petitioner and also against the appellants 1 and 2 herein jointly. It is clear from the facts of the case that since the petitioner was away in Singapore at the time of filing the second appeal and, since there was some delay in sending the vakalath, the petitioner was impleaded as the second respondent in the second appeal.2. This application to transpose is opposed by the first respondent purely on the ground that the petitioner must file an independent second appeal...
The Correspondent, Kayalpattinam Arumuganeri High School Vs. Esther Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ105
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant, a private High School at Arumuganeri, complaints against the order of Mudaliyar, J., who on a writ petition by the first respondent,. directed the appellant to pay her salary and allowances for the period from 16th July, 1968, to 31st May, 1969. The first respondent served in the institution as a teacher. She attained the superannuation at the age of 58 on 15th July, 1968. This was brought to her notice by the appellant by a letter dated 15th April, 1968, which said that on that date she would retire; On 24th April, 1968, she preferred an appeal to the Chief Education Officer against the second respondent's correpondent's views. She took up the stand that her superannuation was to be at 60. Pending disposal of the appeal and on the advice of the Chief Education Officer, she was continued in service up to 5th August, 1968, when her appeal was dismissed. A further appeal she filed, but that was rejected on 19th March, 1969, by the Director of School E...
Halima Fancy Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR190(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee, a firm of partnership carrying on business in fancy and general goods under the name and style of 'Halima Fancy Stores', was constituted by an instrument of partnership dated April 28, 1962, and was carrying on business from April 1, 1962. The partners of the firm were Amina Bivi, N. Hussain and K. A. Sulaiman with one Halima Begum, a minor, admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The firm was registered under Section 184 for the assessment year 1963-64 and the registration was continued for 1964-65. A fresh deed of partnership came to be executed on September 3, 1964, during the previous year ended March 31, 1965, relevant to the assessment year 1965-66. Under this deed, Halima Begum was described as aged 19 years and was taken as a full-fledged partner. It was stated in this deed that she attained the age of majority on the expiry of March 31. 1964, and has been equated as a full-fledged partner from April 1, 1964. The firm also filed an applicatio...
D. Kanniah Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR520(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee is an individual. He was the proprietor of a transport service styled as Sri Meenakshiamman Motor Service. On October 1, 1961, he converted this proprietary business into a partnership firm consisting of himself and one Viravan Chettiar both having equal share. The terms of the partnership are evidenced by a deed dated October 16, 1961. According to the terms of this document all assets and liabilities of the assessee in the transport business were taken over by the firm at the book values and the value of the goodwill of the proprietary business was determined at Rs. 3,75,000. The capital of the partnership business was fixed at Rs. 6,00,000 which was to be contributed equally by the two partners. In the assessee's current account the book value of the assets and the value of goodwill were credited which along with another credit of Rs. 12,930 amounted to Rs. 6,12,930. The assessee had withdrawn from this account a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 by way of transfe...
K. Ramachandra Rao Vs. Krishnaswami Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ267
ORDERA Varadarajan, J.1. This petition is to revise the judgment of the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur (Revisional Authority) made in C.R.P. No. 2 of 1973 in which the learned Judge has ordered eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the building occupied by him for the purpose of his business is required bona fide by the respondent for the purpose of demolition and re-construction.2. The respondent filed the eviction petition R.C.O.P. No. 137 of 1969 before the Rent Controller, Kumbakonam under Section 14(1)(b) alleging that the building is in very bad state of repairs and requires to be immediately pulled down and re-constructed and that he therefore requires the building for the purpose of demolition and re-construction. The learned Rent Controller did not give any specific finding regarding the condition of the building but allowed the petition observing that there is nothing uncommon in the petitioner before him requiring the building for demolition and reconstructio...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Parry and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC122(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. These two tax cases relate to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 and raise a common question as to the taxability of certain transport charges. The respondent-assessee claimed that these freight charges have been separately charged for in their bills and, therefore, could not be included in the taxable turnover under Rule 6(c) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. But the assessing officer held with reference to the bills produced that the amounts claimed as deduction are pre-sale charges and therefore part of the price itself and liable to be included in the taxable turnover. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On the ground that the bills produced show the transport charges separately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and had deducted the amount from the taxable turnover. The revenue has filed these revision petitions.2. All the transactions in dispute were entered into between the respondent-assessee and one Messrs. K....
Haridas Girdharidas and ors. Vs. M. Varadaraja Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ193
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This is a prolonged litigation involving landlord and tenant and the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (111 of 1922) as amended by Madras Acts XIX of 1955, IV of 1972 and XXIV of 1973. The tenant, one Varadaraja Pillai, who having died on 21st May, 1974 and is now represented by his heirs, asks in his applications for a direction to the landlord to sell to him the land covered by the lease for a price to be fixed either on the ground that in view of Madras Act IV of 1972, the Judgment in H. Girdharidas v. V. Pillai : [1972]1SCR291 , is null and void or on reopening of review of that Judgment in terms of Section 9(3-A) of Madras Act XXIV of 1973. The appellants there had by a registered lease deed dated 17th November, 1938 leased out to the tenant a certain plot of land for a period of fifteen years and three months on a rent of Rs. 560 pee month with an option for renewal for a further term of ten years but at the enhanced rent of Rs. 630 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »