Chennai Court June 1976 Judgments
K. Ramamurthy Vs. the Corporation of Madras by Its Commissioner and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ116
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein was recruited as Lower Division Clerk by the Corporation of Madras, the first respondent herein. Subsequently, he was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk on 25th February, 1949 in the scale of pay Rs. 250--10--300--15--450. In the year 1964, the Corporation of Madras, prepared and published an establishment list as on 1st April, 1964. In that list, the petitioner has been shown as No. 177.... The petitioner claims that he having put in more than 10 years of service as an Upper Division Clerk, is eligible for promotion as Section Manager.2. It appears that the Appointment Committee of the Corporation of Madras constituted under Section 93 (2) of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 laid down certain criteria for the promotion of Lower Division Clerks to the post of Upper Division Clerks and placed the same before the Council for its acceptance under Section 86 of the Act. In the same way, in the year 1967, the Appointment Committee had...
Tag this Judgment!Devayee Vs. S. Ramaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad162; (1977)1MLJ80
1. This second appeal, having been referred to a Bench by Sethuraman J., comes up before us. The wife of the first defendant filed a suit for maintenance. The allegation in the plaint is that on 13-2-1971, the first defendant beat her, took away her jewels and drove her away from the house. She claimed 11/2 pothies of paddy and 11/2 pothies of cholam every year, in addition to Rs. 100 towards her other expenses. She also claimed that she was entitled to reside in a portion of the house belonging to the first defendant. She further claimed that she was entitled to a charge over the plaint schedule property for securing due payment of the maintenance. Before the filing of the suit, the first defendant had filed I. P. 29 of 1 971, on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, and was adjudged as insolvent. The properties of the first defendant had vested with the second defendant, Official Receiver of Salem. In the insolvency proceedings, the properties of the first defendant were ordered to be so...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Roadways Limited, Successors-in-interest Southern Roadways (P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ115
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner-Company owns, among others two items of properties (1) an extent of 17 grounds 1050 sq. feet in T.S. No. 46|1, Block No. 14 of Ward No. 1, and (2) 3 kanis 1 ground and 1362 sq. feet in old T.S. No. 121, Block No. 24 of Ward No. 1 of Tiruchirapalli. These two items of properties had been assessed to tax under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966, by the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, Tiruchirapalli. He has determined the market value of item No. 1 at Rs. 10,800 per ground and item No. 2 at Rs. 12,000 per ground as against the petitioner's return fixing the market value of item No. 1 at Rs. 3,000 and item No. 2 at Rs. 3,600.2. The assessment was taken on appeal to the special Tribunal constituted under Section 20 of the Act. In that appeal, the petitioner filed a list of sale deeds as well as the copies thereof to establish his case that the value fixed by the assessing authority for the two items of lands is highly excessive and it has no relev...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pathinen Grama Arya Vysya Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR788(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred to this court two questions of law for its opinion, namely :'1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the loss of Rs. 16,096 incurred in the process of the transfer of securities in favour of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. was admissible ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum to the extent of Rs. 18,931 which formed part of the total sum transferred by the assessee to the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., by way of gratuity to the employees for the services rendered to it, was admissible as a deduction ' 2. One of the businesses of the assessee was banking business. The assessee transferred its banking business to the Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. under a series of agreements entered into between the two. Actually the transfer took place on December 14, 1964. One of the agreements entered into between the two parties which is r...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.M. Thangavel Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR556(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 28,622 is not includible in the total income under the provisions of the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?' The short facts which give rise to the above question are as follows :2. The assessee as an individual was running four proprietary businesses of plying lorries, running an oil mill, running a rice mill and running a cinema house. The total capital of the assessee invested in these businesses amounted to Rs. 30,000 represented by several assets. The assessee admitted his two major sons as partners in these businesses giving them 25% share each and admitted his two minor sons to the benefits of the partnership with 12% share in profits each. T...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramaswamy Vs. the Assistant Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ162
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the premises No. 34-A, Thanjavur Road, in Vijayapuram, Tiruvarur. The premises consists of S. No. 567/1 of an extent of about 12197 sq. ft. and S. No. 559 of an extent of about 3000 sq. ft. On. these two survey numbers, the petitioner has constructed a saw mill and other superstructure consisting of 9 shops and one office-room. These constructions were put up after getting the building plans sanctioned by Tiruvarur Municipality in the years 1962 and 1973.2. However, the respondent with his men is said to have visited the premises on 27th January, 1975 and started demolishing the compound wall. The petitioner immediately brought the matter to the notice of the District Collector, Thanjavur. Thereafter on 29th January, 1975, the respondent again is said to have come to the premises and attempted to demolish the shops with the assistance of the men brought by him. The petitioner resisted this attempt. Thereafter on 30th Janu...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Abdul Hameed Vs. K.V. Rangaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad415; (1977)1MLJ452
1. The only point that is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this second appeal is that the notice to quit given by the plaintiff (respondent) after termination of the tenancy was not in accordance with law and that therefore the suit is not maintainable.2. The tenancy is in respect of a vacant site and it was a monthly tenancy, the monthly rent being Rs. 40. The tenancy commenced on 1st June, 1959. The plaintiff issued a notice on 7-11-1969 terminating the tenancy. It is stated in this notice that the tenant should vacate the property and give possession within the end of the month. It also called upon the tenant to 'vacate and surrender possession of the property on 30th November 1969.'3. The question for consideration is whether this notice complies with the provisions of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act?4. That section requires the notice to expire with the end of the month of the tenancy. According to the learned counsel, requiring to vacate and surrender poss...
Tag this Judgment!A. Pattammal Alias Pachaiyammal Vs. Nagarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ286
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first Defend ant in O.S. No. 80 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore is the appellant.2. The second defendant and the four minor plaintiffs constituted a Hindu undivided family. The second defendant is the son of one Thandavaraya Mudaliar who besides his only son, namely, the second defendant, had two daughters. He died in 1958 leaving behind him Schedule A properties which are the only properties available in the family. After Thandavaraya's death, under the Hindu Succession Act, the two daughters also had a right in the properties so left by their father. It appears that the daughters wanted their share in their father's property. Though for the purpose of enumeration, there are two items in the A Schedule, it is conceded that the second item in the A-Schedule is neither valuable nor useful property. In fact, the parties went to trial as if the one property which was available for partition and which was Valuable indeed was item 1 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal C. Shah Vs. A.G. Devarajulu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ484
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The plaintiff, who lost his suit for specific performance of a contra of sale in O.S. No. 107 of 1968 on the filt of the Court of the Subordinate Judge Chingleput, is the appellant. Unde, Exhibit A-1 dated 28th May, 1962 which was a registered agreement of sale, there plaintiff contracted to purchase 5 acres and 68 cents of land belonging to the defendant for a sum and consideration of Rs. 52,000. He paid a sum of Rs. 12,000 advance thereunder. Contemporaneously, it would appear that the plaintiff's wife and his sister entered into two other agreements to purchase similar lands belonging to the defendant under two independent contracts with which we are not very much concerned in this case, excepting to refer to it at appropriate places in so far as it has an impact on the facts and circumstances of this case. The plaintiff's case is that apart from the sum of Rs. 12,000 he paid a sum of Ps. 4,000 and a further sum of Rs. 1,000 on 25th August, 1964 and 21st Jan...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.D. Rangaswami Raju Vs. the Municipal Chairman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ29
Kailasam, C.J.1. The eighth defendant in C.S. No. 29 of 1956 on the file of this Court is the appellant before us. One Rao Bahadur A.K.D. Dharma Raja since deceased, founded a trust, called the Dharma Raja Educational Charity Trust, Rajapalayam. There were disputes in the working of the trust and the matter came up before this Court and a scheme was settled in C.S. No. 29 of 1956. The purport of the scheme was that each of the sons of the founder A. K. D. Dharma Raja, was to manage the trust for three years successively. Clause 3 of the scheme provided that the trustee-manager shall be nominated by the District Judge of Ramanathapuram from among the male members of the founder's family according to seniority and the right of each of the five sons of the founder and the male members of each branch to hold the office for a period of three years in rotation by turns, unless disqualified. Regarding the actual management, Clause 23 provided that the trustee-manager would be entitled to nomi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »