Chennai Court August 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.
Palanivel Pillai Vs. Sivakolundu Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ65
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The first defendant in a partition action aggrieved by an order made by the District Munsif of Tirukoilur under Order 20, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, for the determination of mesne profits in the main suit, has come up to this Court. It is common ground that a preliminary, decree for partition was passed on 24th July, 1961. But the matter was taken up further to the first and the second appellate Courts and ultimately by a decree of this Court dated 26th September, 1967 the judgment of the trial Court was upheld. In the preliminary decree, it is conceded that there was a direction regarding the ascertainment of mesne profits as provided for under Order 20, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure. But when the matter was pursued further for obtaining a final decree and when indeed a final decree was secured by the party, no provision was made therein for the determination of the mesne profits in accordance with law. The final decree was passed on 14th August, 196...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Palani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC303(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. This petition under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959 has been preferred by the State against the order of the Sales Appellate Tribunal, Madras-1. In this case, the dealer who had not preferred an appeal against the order of assessment to the appellate authority invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 32 confers a suo motu power of revision on the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the dealer in the following terms :I agree with the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee has a right to move the Deputy Commissioner to revise any order finally passed by the assessing authority under Section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. At the same time, I feel that it shall be the duty of that officer to satisfy himself whether the merits of the case deserve the intervention of the office...
Shri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-ii.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR562(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The assessee is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing of yearn and cloth. The previous year is the calendar year and in 1959, the assessee spent a sum of about Rs. 12,00,000 for the introduction of the casablanca conversion system in its spinning plant. It spent more sums of money on the value of conversion materials in the three succeeding years. It also incurred expenditure on acquiring some other items like spindles, pedestals, etc., in each of these years. For the assessment years 1960-61 to 1963-64, when the Income-tax Officer computed the profits and gains of the business of the assessee, he allowed development rebate on the cost of all the purchases referred to above. However, subsequently, the Income-tax Officer purported to reopen the assessments for all the four years under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act'. The reason for reopening of the assessments was that the income was under-assesse...
Director-General of Employees' State Insurance Corporation Vs. K.A. Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1976
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ351Mad
P.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. These appeals are from the judgment of K.N. Mudaliyar, J., allowing Writ Petition Nos. 1306 and 1307 of 1970. The appellant in both the writ appeals is the Director-General, Employee's State Insurance Corporation, New Delhi. One K A. Venkataraman who is the respondent in these appeals and the petitioner in the writ petitions joined service under the appellant Corporation as a lower division clerk on 27-1-1956. He was promoted as an upper division cleric on 2-10-1958. He was confirmed in that post in 1962. He was subsequently promoted as head clerk, but purely on a temporary basis.2. The appellant-Corporation is an all-India body, and its services were organized on an all-India basis. Under its service regulations, there were two methods of recruitment of head clerks : (i) by direct recruitment and (ii) by promotion from the immediately lower cadre of upper division clerks. Promotion was to be by selection on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority. The sel...
E.S.i.C. Vs. K. Ramachandran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ214Mad
1. These three appeals have been filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation against the common judgment of Venkataraman, J., in C.M.A. Nos. 260, 26l and 262 of 1968 The respondents in each of the appeals before us are different, but the question raised is the same. It arises in the following circumstances2. The respondents are textile mills in Combater District They had constructed their factories some time ago. Ever since then, they have been engaged in the production of yarn. Recently each of these mills proceeded to put up additional factory buildings for installing extra spindles and for expanding production. Construction workers were, naturally, employed to do the work of actual construction of these additional buildings 3. The question arose whether these construction workers were employees within the meaning of the Employees' Mate Insurance Act, 1948. If they were, then the respondents were under a statutory obligation to pay the contribution to the Employees' State Ins...
Ranganayaki Ammal and ors. Vs. S.R. Srinivasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ56
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 to 6 appeal against the preliminary decree for partition, given by the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. Srinivasa Iyengar had two sons, Ramaswami Iyengar and Rajagopala Iyengar. They originally constituted members of a Hindu undivided family. The plaintiff is the son of Ramaswami Iyengar. The first defendant is the second wife of Ramaswamy Iyengar. The second and the third defendants are the son and daughter of Ramaswami Iyengar through his second wife. The fourth and the fifth defendants are the children of the third defendant and the 6th defendant is the husband of the third defendant. The 7th and 8th defendants are the grand-children of Ramaswami Iyengar born to his daughter Bhuma, who in turn was the first daughter through his first wife Padmasani Ammal. The case of the plaintiff is that Srinivasa Iyengar, Ramaswami Iyengar and Rajagopala Iyengar formed a Hindu undivided family and when he was an one month child, his mother Padmasani...
A. and F. Harvey Ltd. as Agents to Executors of the Estate of Late And ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]107ITR326(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the applicant was liable to wealth-tax for the assessment year 1957-58 on a sum of Rs. 20,50,000 ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there were duplicate assessments in respect of the same wealth and that the assessments and the corresponding departmental appeals have become otiose and as such the departmental appeals do not merit any consideration or decision ?(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the assessee's interest in the income from shares in Messrs. A. & F. Harvey Ltd. should...
S. Sethurathnam Pillai Vs. Lucy Baskara Josephine Styling Herself as B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ141
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The plaintiff, the appellant, filed a suit for a declaration that the second defendant is not his legitimate or illegitimate daughter. The plaintiff is a land owner, who had about 50 or 60 acres of fertile wet lands in Kulitalai. He lost his father at the age of 17 or so. He was married on 5th of May, 1935 to one Ammakannu Ammal, who came from the same caste, i.e., Karkatha Vellalas. He married again in 1958 and the second wife is one Saraswati. The first defendant is the daughter of one Duraisami Pillai, a Christian. Her father was an Assistant Engineer in Kulitalai from about 1944 till 1950. The first defendant claimed that she had married the plaintiff on 15th August, 1944 and that the second defendant is the daughter born out of their wedlock. According to her, she lived with the plaintiff at several places till, about 1966. Then he ceased to take interest in her. She, therefore, filed a petition under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of the Ad...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-ii Vs. Madras Co-operative House Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR187(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, 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 whole income from house properties and interest of the society consisted of profits of the business carried on by it and that it should be exempted within the terms of the notification dated August 25, 1925, issued under section 60 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'The facts which gave rise to the above question are as follows : The assessee in this case is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. The activities of the society as found by the Tribunal which has referred to the bye-laws of the society, are as follows :'The society was formed to acquire lands and to set up a housing colony. For this purpose it raised ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S. Venugopala Konar and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR52(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - By these petitions under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-II, Madras, requests this court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, to state a case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court in each of these cases :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the department has not established that the assessee had concealed his wealth in the return filed by him when the assessees value was far less than that fixed by the assessees valuer ?(3) Whether the Tribunals finding that the assessee is not guilty of concealment of wealth is based on relevant and valid consideration and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?'The responde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »