Chennai Court January 1977 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.
P.C. Govindasamy Vs. Balakrishna Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ466
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The point raised, though short, is rather interesting. The petitioner who is admittedly an agriculturist filed an application under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1976 to stay execution of a decree for costs, obtained by the respondents in O.S. No. 73 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore. An execution petition was filed by the respondents for recovery of costs which they secured in the above proceedings. It was resisted on the ground that the petitioner was an agriculturist and that he was entitled to relief under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act XV of 1976.2. The Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, refused relief and hence this civil revision petition. Two Acts were enacted by the President of India in so far as the State of Tamil Nadu was concerned. One is Act XV of 1976 which was to provide temporary relief to indebted agriculturists in the State of Tamil Nadu and the other Act XVI of 1976, which was to provide tempora...
Badrunnisa Begum Vs. H. Palani Ambalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1977
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ362
ORDERS. Suryamurthy, J.1. This is a petition under Section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to stop all further proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 32 of 1974 on the file of the Rent Controller's Court, Pudukkottai and to direct the respondents to put the petitioner in possession of the property which is the subject-matter of the said R.C.O.P. The revision-petitioner is the owner of the building which is in the occupation of the respondents herein as tenants on a monthly rent of Rs. 40. A petition for eviction was filed by the landlady before the learned Rent Controller, Pudukkottai, inter alia on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and sub-lease without the permission of the landlady. The petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. An appeal preferred before the learned Appellate Authority was also dismissed. The landlady has filed' the civil revision petition pending in this Court. During the pendency of the civil revision petition, ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M.M. Muthiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1977
Reported in: [1977]109ITR463(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law has been referred to us to give an answer thereto :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that the part payment of refund ofannuity deposit in the sum of Rs. 1,509 referable to the assessment year1967-68 was not an income liable to tax within the meaning of Section 2(24)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the hands of each of theassessees ?' 2. Two appeals were disposed of by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in which the appellant was Shri M. M. Muthiah, as father and guardian of the minors, and the respondent in the present reference is also Shri M. M. Muthiah, as father and guardian of the two minors. A common question arose in both the appeals. Hence the two applications filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-II, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were consolid...
S. Gatikachala Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, by Its S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ109
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. By this judgment I shall dispose of seven petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, viz., Writ Petitions Nos. 3437, 5667, 5732, 7181 and 6963 of 1975 and Writ Petitions Nos. 793 and 795 of 1976, in each of which the petitioner is either firm or an individual carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling varnish within the territorial limits of Tamil Nadu under licences issued in pursuance of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Denatured Spirit, Methyl Alcohol and Varnish (French Polish) Rules, 1959 (here in after referred to as the Rules) which were framed by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in exercise of the powers conferred on him by, inter alia, the provisions of Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (here in after referred to as the Act). In the year 1970, Sub-rule (vii) of Rule 9 of the Rules was amended so as to consist of two clauses which read thus:(vii)(a) Security.-In the Case of applications for a licence in Forms D.L. 1, D...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. R. Saraswathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR525(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, in this petition under Section 64(3) for the Estate Duty Act, 1953, requests this court to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, to refer the following 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 upholding the validity of the Appellate Controller's order granting reduction in precise terms in the best judgment assessment made under Section 58 of the Estate Duty Act? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, arid having regard to the manner of quantification of relief by the Appellate Controller, the character of best judgment assessment acquiesced in, is maintained by the Appellate Tribunal ' 2. On the death of one T.K. Rathnapandia Nadar, his wife, Saraswathi Ammal, filed the estate duty account. The Assistant Controller called for certain information and particulars and since they were not furnish...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›