Chennai Court March 1976 Judgments
Kandammal and ors. Vs. Kandiah thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ121
A. Varadarajan, J1. The plaintiff who failed in the trial Court and succeeded in part in the lower appellate Court is the appellant. She filed the suit for declaration of her title to two items of house properties and for recovery of possession of the same. The appellant is the elder sister of the respondents. They are all the children of Ganapathi Sundara Thevar who is stated to have died in or about 1940 and Valavanthammal who was examined as D.W.2. According to the appellant, item 1 belonged to her father Ganapathi Sundara Thevar and was gifted by him to his wife D.W.2 under Exhibit A-1 dated 28th October, 1931 and D.W.2 got item 2 in exchange under Exhibit A-2 dated 28th October, 1963 and she sold both items 1 and 2 to her under Exhibit A-3 dated 11th December, 1964 for a consideration of Rs. 1,000. The appellant alleged that after she purchased under Exhibit A-3, she bad leased the properties to Avudaikannu Thevar, P.W.2 on a rent of Rs. 25 per mensem, that he was in possession fo...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N.K. Venkataravanamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad47
1. This is a reference under Sec. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act by the Board of Revenue (Land Revenue), Madras. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows: Respondents 1 to 8 mortgaged the premises bearing Nos. 165 to 168 Devaraja Mudali St. Madras, with the trustees of Veera Sriamulu Chetti Charities, Madras, and borrowed a sum of Rupees 30,000. Subsequently, on 9-11-1964, they raised a loan of Rs. 50,000 from the Nedumgadi Bank Ltd., to discharge the earlier loan and for completing the construction. On the same day, they executed a lease deed in favour of the said Bank in respect of the first floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 500 for a period of ten years to be adjusted against the mortgage amount due to the Bank. The 9th respondent is the guarantor of the mortgage debt. When the mortgage document was presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar levied a deficit stamp duty of Rupees 3625 and a penalty of Rs. 10 on 5-1-1965. Aggrieved by this, the respondents took up the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.M. Palanisami Nadar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]108ITR158(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. These petitions have been preferred by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-IV, Madras, under Section 256(2),of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal to this court fordecision. '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the buildings used by the assessee for sundry repairs, etc., are factory buildings for the purposes of computing depreciation (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's interpretation of the word 'factory' occurring in the Income-tax Rules is sustainable in law (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the workshop maintained by the assessee could constitute a ' factory building' and the assessee was entitled to double the rate of depreciation admissible to a factory building? ' 2. There are no controversies a...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subramaniam and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]106ITR508(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. These three petitions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, preferred by the assessee, are for a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, to refer the following questions of law, said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal, to this court for decision:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the applicant had not established that the belated filing of the return was on account of any reasonable cause ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that notwithstanding the fact that the return filed by the applicant showed income below the taxable limit there was no reasonable cause for not filing the return ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the explanation offered by the applicant for the delay in filing the re...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Pamban Kumaragurubara Swami Temple Vs. K. Subramanya Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad27
ORDER1. This is a petition to transfer O. S. No. 65 of 1972, on the file of the Principal subordinate Judge's Court, Chingleput, to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The transfer is prayed for only on the ground of convenience. The respondent herein has filed O. S. 65 of 1972, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chingleput for getting possession of 52 cents of land purchased by him in R. S. 172/2 at Thiruvanmiyur village. In respect of this land, the petitioner submits that the same is part of the land purchased by him as early as 4-6-1929. Under that purchase, the petitioner has acquired 3 acres and 11 cents wherein the Samadhi of Pamban Swami is situated.As per the allegation in the transfer petition, the petitioner has covered it with a fence wherein the Samadhi of Pamban Swamigal stands. It is further contended by the petitioner that both the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit are residents of Madras, that Thiruvanmiyur is nearer to the City Civil Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Pamban Kumaragurubara Swami Temple, by Its Trustee T.T. Kuppuswamy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ209
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This is a petition to transfer O.S. No. 65 of 1972 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Chingleput, to the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The transfer is prayed for only on the ground of convenience.The respondent therein has filed O.S. No. 65 of 1972 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, at Chingleput for getting possession of 52 cents of land purchased by him in R.S. No. 172/2 at Timvanmiyur village. In respect of this land, the petitioner submits that the same is part of the land purchased by hire as early as 4th June, 1929. Under that purchase, the petitioner has acquired 3acresard 11 cents wherein the Samadhi of Pamban Swami is situated. As per the allegation in the transfer petition, the petitioner has covered it with a fence wherein the Samadhi of Pamban Swamigal stand Section It is further contended by the petitioner that both the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit are residents of Madras, that Thiruva...
Tag this Judgment!Karnagam Vs. Jayaseelam Chettiar and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad250
1. The Court below ought not to have dismissed the petitioner's application for adjudication as an insolvent under S. 10(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The petitioner's case in his petition was that he had incurred loans in cultivation and agricultural operations and incurred debts to the tune of Rs. 7,200 which is inclusive of a decree debt admittedly obtained against him by one of his creditors who is the first respondent in the application filed in the lower Court. It is not in dispute that the first respondent obtained a decree in O. S. No. 418 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Nagapattinam and that he has levied execution against him and obtained also an order of arrest in execution of the decree. Consequent upon such harassment by his creditors and him inability to pay the debts disclosed by him in the schedule to the petition. the petitioner came to Court with an application for voluntary adjudication, of himself as an insolvent. Excepting the first...
Tag this Judgment!B. Yamuna Bai Vs. N. Rangaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ223
ORDERT. Ramaprasada. Rao, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has to be dismissed though not on the ground on which the lower Court based its conclusion, but on the ground that the petitioner-landlady is not entitled to possession of the buildings which are two rooms in this case on the specific legal injunction sanctioned by the principle laid down in Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is common ground that the petitioner sought for the eviction of the respondent from the very same building on the ground that she wanted to demolish and reconstruct the same. This was early in 1964. That application was dismissed. She renewed the request under the present application filed in 1974 on the very same ground, namely demolition and reconstruction. She wanted the tenant to vacate so that she could demolish, reconstruct and occupy the same. The lower court dismissed the application on the ground that it lacked bona fides. I am not inclined to canvass t...
Tag this Judgment!Vaiyapuri Gounder Vs. Kalianna Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad247; (1977)1MLJ11
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 687 of 1967 on the file for the Court of the District Munsif of Gobichettipalayam, who succeeded before the trial Court, but lost before the first appellate Court, is the appellant herein. Admittedly the suit properties originally belonged to the joint family of one Krishna Gounder and his sons. The said Krishna Gounder acting for himself and as guardian of his minor sons sold the suit properties to the defendant on 17-10-1962 for a consideration of Rs. 1500. Subsequently under Ex. A-1 dated 17-6-1963 the defendant in the present suit entered into an agreement with Krishna Gounder agreeing to sell the suit properties to him for a consideration of Rs. 1,500 and received an advance of Rs. 10 and it was agreed that the balance was to be paid and the sale deed to be executed in any 'Chithirai Kalvathi' within four years. Admittedly Krishna Gounder assigned the right secured under Ex. A-1 in favour of the plaintiff in the present action under Ed. A-2 dated 6-4-...
Tag this Judgment!Karmagam Vs. Jayaseelam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ342
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Court below ought not to have dismissed the petitioner's application for adjudication as an insolvent under Section 10(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The petitioner's case in his petition was that he has incurred loans in cultivation and agricultural operations; and incurred debts to the tune of Rs. 7,200 which is inclusive of a decree debt: admittedly obtained Against him by one of his creditors who is the first respondent in the application filed in the lower Court. It is not in dispute that the first respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 418 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Nagapattinam and that he has levied execution against him and obtained also an order of arrest in execution of the decree. Consequent upon such harassment by his creditors and his inability to pay the debts disclosed by him in the schedule to the petition, the petitioner came to Court with an application for voluntary adjudication, of himself as a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »