Chennai Court February 1977 Judgments
Gopalakrishna Pillai and anr. Vs. Chinnapillai Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ368
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The plaintiffs who lost in both the Courts below are the appellants. They filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession thereof. The suit properties are 2.41 acres comprised in R.S. No. 6/1 and 17 cents in R.S. No. 6/8 of Kilakarai Village, Chidambaram taluk. It is common ground that these properties originally belonged to one Namasivayam who died about 38 years prior to the date of the suit and that after his death his second wife Rukmani, who died on 30th June, 1968 was in possession of those properties. The appellants who are brothers contend that Namasivayam's first wife was one Kamalam and she had a son by name Dharmalingam, who died in 1940 and they are the sons of Dharmalingam and that therefore they are the heirs of Namasivayam. The 1st respondent is the lessee who is alleged to have declined to recognise the title of the appellants to the suit properties. Respondents 3 to 5 are the daughters and the 6th...
Tag this Judgment!Munia Reddiar Vs. the Board of Revenue, Represented by Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ7
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner is a land-owner in village Kamakkapalayam in Attur taluk of Salem district. On the 30th of June, 1970 his application for the grant of a licence for the possession of a gun was accepted by the District Revenue Officer, Salem (here in after referred to as the D.R. O.). The licence was renewed on the 22nd of December, 1970 for the period ending with the 31st of December, 1973.2. A notice dated the 11th of February, 1971 was issued by the D.R.O. to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why his gun-licence should not be cancelled for the reason that he was involved in civil and criminal cases registered in Thalaivasal Police Station, that other cases were also pending and that he had been guilty of rowdy behaviour and had threatened others. The petitioner sent a reply to the notice stating inter alia that consequent upon an election dispute, he had been attacked by enemies and had sustained injuries, that he had made a complaint to the police to t...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Naidu and anr. Vs. Gopalakrishna Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad54
1. The question that arises for consideration in this second appeal by the plaintiff's is whether the deed dated 5-7-1962 executed by one Nachar Ammal is a will or a settlement. If it is construed as a will, the plaintiffs' suit is liable to be dismissed, and if it is construed as a settlement, the plaintiffs will succeed. Though the trial court held that it is a settlement deed, the lower appellate court held that it is a will and dismissed the suit.2. The document is styled as a settlement deed. It was also registered as such. In the preamble of the document, it is stated that out of natural love and affection for the first plaintiff and his wife the second plaintiff who are the son and daughter-in-law of the executant's paternal uncle and with a view to make them absolute owners after her lifetime, she is executing the document. In the disposition clause, it was stated that after the lifetime of the executant, the property will have to be taken and enjoyed absolutely with all rights...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Venkataraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: [1977]109ITR247(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This reference relates to two assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessee is a Hindu. On 2nd January, 1960, the assessee married a German Christian lady in the Church of the Sacred Heart according to the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Catholics. The assessee has a daughter by name Christine. The assessee filed the returns in the status of an individual for the two assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. Later, relying on the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in its judgment in N.V. Narendranath v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax : [1969]74ITR190(SC) , that to constitute a Hindu undivided family there need not be two male members, the assessee filed revised returns for these two assessment years in the status of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and his unmarried daughter. In the original return filed in the status of an individual he returned an income of Rs. 21,930 for the assessment year 1965-66. For the assessment year 1966-67 in the o...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. Isthmian India Mar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR570(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The assessee in this case is a private limited company and, being an Indian company, section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies to this company. For the assessment year 1968-69, the company returned a loss of Rs. 91,154. This loss was arrived at on the basis that, out of Rs. 3,08,698 which the company received by way of fees, as contemplated by section 80-O, the company was entitled to a deduction of 60%. The Income-tax Officer did not accept this case of the assessee. He disallowed a sum of Rs. 10,568 by way of expenditure claimed as deductible by the assessee. He added to this, 60% of Rs. 3,08,698, which was Rs. 1,85,219 and arrived at a sum of Rs. 1,95,787. Against this sum of Rs. 1,95,787 he set off the admitted loss of Rs. 91,154, and thus converted the loss into a profit of Rs. 1,04,633 and after setting off the unabsorbed loss of Rs. 4,991 of the assessment year 1967-68, he arrived at the taxable profit of Rs. 99,642. The Income-tax Officer held that this sum ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kanagasabapathy Vs. City Supply Officer, Civil Supplies Department ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ184
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the permanent staff of the Transport Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu (here in after referred to as the parent department). In the year 1964, he was sent on a deputation to the Civil Supplies Department of the same Government (here in after referred to as the borrowing department) and worked therein till the year 1966 when he went back to the parent department. About a year and a half later, he was asked to explain certain matters in relation to the performance of his duties in the borrowing department during the period when he had worked there as manager of a ration depot. Ultimately the matter culminated in an order dated 12th of August, 1970 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Madras and holding the petitioner responsible for payment to the borrowing department of a sum of Rs. 776.39 and directing that the sum be recovered from him in fifteen monthly installments, another order dated 30th of April, 1971 ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-ii.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1977
Reported in: [1978]111ITR301(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - Under section 256(1) of the Income-tax, 1961, at the instance of the assessee the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench has referred the following question of the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the action under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the reassessments of the assessee for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 was valid in law ?'The assessee is carrying on business for which books of accounts were kept and closed at the end of 31st July. In the books of account kept for the business for the years ended July 31, 1956, and July 31, 1957, there were entries relating to certain loans said to have been borrowed from Multani bankers on the strength of hundis. Interest said to have been paid on these loans was adjusted by debit to the profit and loss account for arriving at the business income and was thus claimed as deduction in the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Linga Gounder Vs. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ469
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. Both the revision cases have been preferred by one and the same person, the former against an ex parte order of maintenance passed in favour of the respondent, the latter against an order of maintenance passed after contest. The respondent herein is the illegitimate minor son of the petitioner. His mother, one Mangammal, filed a petition Under Section 125 (1) (b), Cr.PC 1973, for grant of maintenance to him. The averment of the mother was that the petitioner had neglected the child and failed to provide maintenance for it. The principal defence in the case was that on account of a maintenance decree, passed by a Civil Court, in favour of the minor son, an independent application Under Section 125 (1) (b), Cr.PC was not maintainable, The objection wag not sustained and the learned Magistrate granted maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. That order is challenged by the petitioner in these revision cases.2. Since the ex parte order of maintena...
Tag this Judgment!Vellore Electricity Corporation Ltd. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1977
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ229Mad
ORDERMohan, J.1. The facts relating to these writ petitions are shortly as follows: The third respondent in each case were employed either as assistant or junior assistant in the Vellore Electricity Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Corporation). Industrial dispute arose between the employees and the Electricity Corporation. Discussion took place on various dates. A settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was entered into on 26-11-1973. Clause 6 of the settlement which is important for our purposes reads that 'the wages, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and other benefits will be extended, as and when the same are revised or sanctioned by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board from time to time, to the employees'.2. The Electricity Corporation was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Electricity Board) under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act of 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act XXX...
Tag this Judgment!Management of the Indian Bank Vs. Industrial Tribunal (Central Governm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1977
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ343Mad
Koshal, J.1. The Indian Bank (one of the nationalised banks and the sole petitioner before me and hereinafter referred to as the Bank) promoted 181 members of its clerical cadre staff as officers and posted them to its branches in northern India. These officers were not allowed the benefit of two additional increments which were, however, given to officers of the same grade who were not promoted from the clerical cadre staff. The discrimination led to a controversy between the Bank and the Indian Bank Employees Union, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the union) which culminated in a reference of the following industrial dispute by the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter called the Tribunal),Whether the action of the management of the Indian Bank, Madras in denying the grant of two additional increments to staff promoted as officers and posted to the branches of the bank in North India is justified? If not, to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »