Chennai Court October 1976 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.
Karuppanna Konar and ors. Vs. Govindan Minor Alias Logendran, Through ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ326
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Defendants 3 to 5 are the appellants. Under a marriage settlement deed 30th January, 1958 the first defendant settled the suit property in favour of his wife Subbalakshmi Ammal. Subsequent to the death of Subbalakshmi Ammal, the first defendant purported to. sell the property to defendants 4 and 5 under two sale deeds dated 7th December, 1965 and 16th January, 1977. The minor son of Subbalakshmi had filed a suit for setting aside these two sale deeds executed by his father and for recovery of possession. His contention was that under the marriage settlement deed dated 30th January 1958 his mother Subbalakshmi Ammal was only given a life interest without any powers of alienation and that on her death he had become entitled to the property and that since the property belonged to the minor plaintiff, the first defendant had. no right to execute the sale-deeds in favour of defendants 4 and 5 even for necessity without an order of Court. The plaintiff' accordingly asked f...
Roshan N.M.A. Karim Oomar and Co. and ors. Vs. Kaka Mohamed Ghouse Sah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad175; (1977)1MLJ503
1. In C. S. No. 173 of 1950 on the file of the Original Side of this court, Kaka Mohamed Ghouse Sahib and Co., Madras, represented by its sole proprietor Kaka Mohamed Ghouse Sahib, obtained a simple money decree against a partnership firm called "Roshan N.M.A. Kareem Oomer and Co.," Madras, represented by three partners, Roshan Abdul Ahad, Jalal Mohamed Ibrahim Sahib and Kaka Hajee Mohamed Isamil Sahib, for Rs. 57,876-11-11 and subsequent interest and cots. The decree was passed on 23-3-1952. It would appear that subsequent to the decree, the judgment-debtors had been paying to the decree-holder various amounts from time to time in part satisfaction of the decree. The last of such payments was made on 2-4-1958. While so, one of the partners of the judgment-debtor firm. Jalal Mohamed Ibrahim Sahib, filed a suit in O. S 367 of 1958 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, against the decree-holder and another person for a declaration that the decree in C. S. 173 of 1950 on the file o...
Nagheetha Maracair Vs. Govindaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ411
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 43 of 1966 on the file of the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, is the appellant. The first respondent herein, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,502.25 with future interest and costs by passing a mortage decree in respect of the suit property or in the alternative by passing a money-decree against the defendants personally and a mortgage decree against the first defendant's 1/4th share in the suit property. The first respondent's case was that the first defendant as a power-of-attorney agent of his wife Kathija Bi executed the suit mortgage deed on 9th July, 1954, for Rs. 6,000, agreeing to pay it with interest at 9 per cent per annum, that no amount had in fact been paid towards the said mortgage, that Kathija Bi died in or about September, 1963, leaving her surviving husband, the first defendant, her daughters, defendants 2 to 5, her Son the 6th defendant and her mother the 7th defendant as heirs under Mohamedan Law, that the heirs ...
S.S. Khader Mohammed Rowther and Co. Vs. G.S. Sundaram and Bros.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad379; (1977)1MLJ268
ORDER1. The Rent Control appellate authority has misconceived the entire authority has misconceived the entire situation. There was an order setting the tenant ex parte and consequent upon it there was an order of eviction passed against him in a proceeding initiated by the landlord under Act 18 of 1960. Unfortunately the Rent Controller clubbed both these orders. The tenant took up the matter whereby he was set ex parte to the appellate court and there he was not successful. A further attempt to bring it up to the High Court in revision also failed. Thereafter or probably contemporaneously the tenant filed an appeal against the ultimate order of eviction. When this came up for hearing and which was after the above processes were exhausted and after the High Court refused to interfere in the matter to set aside the ex parte order, the appellate court held that such an appeal was not maintainable. It held so on the ground that it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The appellate ...
South India Viscose Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1976
Reported in: [1980]46STC7(Mad)
Ismail, J.Appendix1. These tax revision cases are filed against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated 6th April, 1970, dismissing the three appeals preferred by the petitioner herein. The three appeals related to the revision of assessments for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 and the original assessment for 1964-65. We are not referring to the actual figures involved in these cases for the simple reason that it is admitted that the dispute in all these cases is in respect of sales of viscose rayon yarn to Export Promotion Scheme Card-holders said to have been effected through the petitioner's selling agent at Bombay. It is stated that the exporters were given an incentive in the form of import licence to import art silk yarn from abroad. But that import entitlement was cut to some extent, by allotting to them indigenous art silk yarn at a concessional price and for the purpose of such allotment, a committee called Art Silk Yarn Distribution ...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Carbonic Gas Ind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR700(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow development rebate of Rs. 23,678 on gas cylinders for the assessment year 1968-69? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that subsequent correction of the company's account would meet the requirement of the statutory provision for the assessment year 1968-69 ?' For the assessment year 1968-69, corresponding to the accounting period ending 31st October, 1967, the assessee made a total claim for development rebate of Rs. 72,507. The said amount was made up of two items :Rs.(1)Development rebate on gas cylinders of the value of Rs. 1,18,389 installed during the year23,678(2)Development rebate on other machinery of...
The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras Vs. P.G. Arunachalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ274
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner, Corporation of Madras, against the order of Mudaliyar, J., issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Commissioner, dated 10th November, 1969 by which the increment of the respondent was stopped for a period of six months without cumulative effect. The question that arose for consideration was whether the Commissioner had power to impose the punishment of stoppage of increment. The contention is that, though Section 96 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, (before its Amendment by Act LVI of 1961) provided that the Commissioner could impose the penalty of withholding the increments of promotion including stoppage at any efficiency bar, the amended. Act did not provide for any such punishment. Section 36 of the Act LVI of 1961 corresponds to Section 96 of the old Act. It provides that in the case of employees in class III to which the respondent belongs the punishment which it provided for by ...
Chendamarai and ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (Miscella ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ505
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. By this judgment I shall dispose of three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, viz., Writ Petition Nos. 688, 689 and 1571 of 1972 arising out of land acquisition proceedings which were initiated through a single notification, dated the 24th of May, 1967 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the Act). The land covered by that notification had an extent of 5.98 acres and was situate in Thiruvothiyur Village, Saidapet Taluk as detailed below. S. No. Extent. 194/1-A. 3.43 acres 1-B. 0.04 acres 195/1. 0.02 acres 2. 1.27 acres 197 0.75 acres 198/1-A. 0.47 acres 5.98 acresThis land was split up into two parts. An extent of 0.51 acres comprised as follows: Survey No. 194/1 Part. 0.04 acres Survey No. 198/1-A. 0.47 acres 0.51 acres was sought to be acquired under the ordinary provisions of the Act, while in the case of the rest of the land the objections and the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act were dispensed w...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Estate of Late M. Kuppuswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR127(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 64(2) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', 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 law in holding that the appeals filed by the accountable person on January 29, 1968, and February 21, 1969, before the Appellate Controller against the levy of penalty were competent in view of the proviso to Section 62(1) of the Estate Duty Act and in restoring the appeals back to the Appellate Cantroller for disposal according to law '2. The estate duty payable on the estate of late Sri Kuppuswami Naicker, Madras, by the accountable person was determined at Rs. 68,833.29. The amount was due on or before June 10, 1968, and the same was not paid. After issuing a notice, the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty by his order dated September 20, 1968, imposed a penalty of Rs...
Ve. A. Firm, Represented by Its Managing Partner and ors. Vs. the Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ354
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli. The defendants therein are the appellants and the plaintiffs are bankers having their head office at Madras and branches in India and has an overseas branch in Penang as well. The first defendant is a partnership firm carrying on business at Tiruchi and other places including overseas trading at Penang. The name and style of the first defendant's firm is M/s. VE. A. Firm. This was originally started by VE. A. Annamalai Chettiar and his divided son VE. A. Vairavan Chettiar, the third defendant. On 3rd February, 1959, Annamalai Chettiar died, and thereafter, the third defendant on his behalf and as the trustee and executor of his father, as also the second defendant and the fourth defendant continued the firm as per a fresh deed of partnership dated 13th April, 1960. Defendants 5 and 6 were inducted into the partnership by a deed dated 13th April, 1964, under which...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »