Chennai Court October 1976 Judgments
Nataraja Deekshidar Vs. Aiyathurai Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad255; (1977)1MLJ297
1. Plaintiff is the appeal is the appellant. The suit was for redemption of an usufructuary mortgage dated 29-8-1959 executed by one Kaliaperumal Padayachi in favour of the first defendant, on the allegation that the first defendant has been in enjoyment of the suit property as usufructuary mortgagee and that on 14-7-1960 the plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with Kaliaperumal Padayachi for purchase of the suit property for Rs. 2750. In accordance with the said agreement, Kaliaperumal Padayachi received Rs. 700 from the plaintiff in discharge of the bogiam deed executed by Kaliaperumal Padayachi's daughter Chinapillai, (4th defendant) in favour of one Pakkirisami Padayachi and for the discharge of a pronote debt due by Chinnapillai to the same Pakkirisami Padayachi. It was the further case of the plaintiff that Kaliaperumal Padayachi received on several occasions for his needs amount to the tune of Rs. 150. Later on, on 11-8-1960 Kaliaperumal executed the sale deed in favour of ...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmalinga thevar and anr. Vs. Thayumana thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad338; (1977)1MLJ269
ORDER1. In these two civil revision petitions, a small point arises. Though the cause can be disposed of an the ground of de minimus non curat lex, vet as third party's rights are involved. I am incline to go into it. In a small cause suit, one Dharmalinga Thevar obtained a decree against Thayumana Thevar, and in execution thereof attached the bulls belonging to the judgment debtors. The bulls were attached by the Amin in due process of execution any was entrusted with the decree holders. Thevar executed a surety bond for production of these two bulls at any time when called upon to do by the court. The judgment-debtor paid off the suit amount on 3-7-1973, and sought for the release of the bulls. The court took some time for passing an order to raise the attachment, and actually the order releasing the bulls from attachment was made on 10-7-1973, the judgment-debtor has now come forward with an application under S. 47, read with Ss. 144, 145 and 151, C. P. Code, for the recovery of a s...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel Ashoka Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC347(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The question raised in these two tax revision cases is whether the service charges collected by the petitioner herein could be included in the taxable turnover or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is collecting 5 per cent of the value of the articles served as service charges and the collection is made along with the price of the articles served. The case of the petitioner was that previously the workers were collecting tips from customers, that subsequently under an agreement entered into between the management and the employees under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was agreed that the employees would not collect tips from the customers and instead the management would collect 5 per cent of the tariff value of the articles served as service charges and utilise the service charges so collected byway of paying 50 per cent thereof immediately to the employees and appropriating the other 50 per cent to increase the wages and food allow-ance ...
Tag this Judgment!Kesava Bhagavathar Vs. Vardayya Bhagavathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad298; (1977)1MLJ528
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was on a mortgage to recover a sum of Rs. 9,035. The mortgage was executed on 5-8-1966 by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 6,500. The 4th defendant purchased the property from defendants 1 to 3 under a registered sale deed date 27-8-1969 for a sum for Rs. 9,750. In defence to this suit on mortgage, the 4th defendant contended that out of the sale consideration of Rs. 9,750, he was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,500 to the plaintiff and that it was represented to him that only that much amount was due. He accordingly paid the amount on 29-8-1969 and got an endorsement of payment in the mortgage deed itself and the cancelled mortgage deed was taken delivery of by him along with other documents of title. The plaintiff stated in the plain that at the time of the sale transaction, the defendants required the mortgage deed to be given to them undertaking to discharge the mortgage out of the sale consideration. Since the...
Tag this Judgment!C. Siddeswaran Vs. R. Shanmugham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ242
P.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant in the suit against the judgment of Maharajan, J., granting a decree: (a) for injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's patent No. 67546 and patent for addition No. 90265 during the continuance thereof; and (b) directing the defendant to produce into Court the infringing gramfrying machine in his possession for the purpose of destruction of the infringing parts of his machine and the return of the non-infringing parts to the defendant, after the destruction of the infringing parts. The plaintiff is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of parched Bengal gram and other articles at Dindigul. For the purpose of frying Bengal gram and breaking it into dhalls, the plaintiff invented art automatic machine. The plaintiff registered the patent of the machine as No. 67546 on 8th February, 1961 under the provisions of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The plaintiff was using the patented...
Tag this Judgment!Kasi Viswanathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. C.M. Chinnaiah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ524
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The first three plaintiffs are the sons and the 4th plaintiff is the widow of one Rajamani Chettiar. The defendant is the brother of Rajamani Chettiar. The suit properties are survey Nos. 23110 measuring 1 acre and 12 cents and 2312 measuring 24 cents out of 49 cents. The suit was filed for a declaration and possession of these two items. The plaintiffs' case was that the suit properties originally belonged to the joint family consisting of Rajamani Chettiar and his brother the defendant and that in a partition dated 15th September, 1959 they were allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. Since the defendant though a party to the partition deed claimed title to the suit properties on the ground that he has obained a patta under section , 19-A of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act) the plaintiffs had filed the suit. Though, as already stated, the suit ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Vs. L.G. Ramamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR453(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. In T. C. No. 229 of 1972, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts represented by cross-gifts were not held by the donees as benamidars of the respective donor-Hindu undivided families but in their own right and that the income attributable to the cross-gifts is not assessable in the hands of the donors ?'2. In the application made to the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income-tax had requested the Tribunal to refer four questions, of which the question actually referred was question No. 1. The Tribunal did not refer the other three questions and referred the only question which we have extracted above. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Income-tax approached this court in T.C.Ps. Nos. 16 to 18 of 1973 and by an order dated Febru...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliappan Vs. Munisamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ2038
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the complainant in a private complaint pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hosur. The complaint was to the effect that the 13 respondents and two others, viz., the first and the fourth accused, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed upon the land of the complainant, after arming themselves with deadly weapons, and criminally intimidated the complainant and also caused hurt (Praying the High Court to direct Sub-Divisional Judl. Magistrate, Hosur to frame charge against Respondent in C. C.JNTo. 292 of 1975)to him and had thereby committed offences punishable Under Sections 148, 447 and 324 end 506 (2) I. P. C. The Magistrate after examining the witnesses, framed charges only against accused 1 and 4 Under Section 324 I. P. C. and did not frame charge against the respondents herein. The petitioner applied for a copy of the order of discharge in favour of these respondents. But...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Steelware Industry, Madras Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Import ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad377
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The appellant was the writ petitioner in W. P. No. 993 of 1975 on the file of the court. He sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports Madras, to give back to him the release order No. P/S/R/M/933304/33-34 dated 30-3-1974, with the due cancellation of columns 7 and 9 in the release order.2. The relevant facts are as follows: The petitioner is engaged in a Small Industry since 1971. He, for the purpose of manufacturing hospital and surgical instruments and dairy and chemical instruments, used to obtain licences for the import of raw materials from the appropriate licensing authorities. But in view of the channellisation of such imports through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation the import policy, was changed and the result was that the petitioner could only obtain what is known as a release order in lieu of the licence for import. There was no difficulty upto the period 1970-71. But for the subsequent period, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sengalaneer Pillaiar Temple Represented by Its Trustee Ambalavanan Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ425
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This civil revision petition comes before us on a reference by Mohan, J., who heard, it, in the first instance, without finally deciding it. The revision petition raises an important and controversial question of law as to the effect of a notification issued on 12th August 1974 by the Tamil Nadu Government, under which buildings owned by Hindu, Christian and Muslim Religious Trusts and Charitable Institutions were exempted from all the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In the instant case, eviction proceedings instituted under the Act against the tenant of a building owned by a Hindu Religious institution were pending before the Rent Controller on the date when the exemption was notified. The controversy between the parties was whether, on the issuance of the Government's notification, the eviction petition then pending before the Rent Controller abated or whether he had jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry and dispose...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »