Chennai Court February 1977 Judgments
Union of India and Others Vs. Ameena Bi and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR863(Mad)
RAMASWAMI J. - Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for the appellants. The first respondent-plaintiff is the daughter and only child of one S.M. Sheriff who died on November 11, 1947. The said S.M. Sheriff has submitted his income-tax returns for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48 to the Income-tax Officer, City Circle IV even before his death, but the assessments were not completed. After the death of S.M. Sheriff, one of his four brothers filed C.S. No. 544 of 1947 on the file of this court for partition. In that suit the other brothers of Sheriff, his sister, his widow and the present plaintiff who is his daughter were impleaded as defendants. Pending that suit a receiver was appointed in respect of the estate of the deceased, Sheriff, on February 16, 1948. At the time of the filing of the suit, the plaintiff who was impleaded as the fifth defendant was a minor and she attained the age of majority on September 24, 1949. The Income-tax Officer appears to have issued notices to the receiver ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Palanivelu Vs. K. Veradammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Mad342
1. The defendant who lost in both the courts below is the appellant. The respondent filed the suit for a declaration of her title to the portion of the land shaded blue and marked DEFG in the plaint plan and for recovery of possession thereof and also for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the remaining portion of the suit property. The entire suit property is a land measuring about 10 grounds and 1900 sq. ft. in R. S. 3173/4 block No. 55 Nadavakkam land area in Purasawalkam. The blue shaded portion marked D. E. F. G. is in the south-western corner of R. S. 3173/14. The respondent is the owner of R. S. 3173/14, as per the settlement deed Ex. A-1, dated 11-6-1962, executed by her mother Adiammal. She filed the suit alleging that the appellant trespassed into the DEFG portion of the suit land measuring 5 feet east-west and 63 feet north-south on 21-4-1968 and that he was attempting to interfere with her possession and en...
Tag this Judgment!Chellammal Vs. Angamuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ752
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The appellant was the complainant in C. C. No. 236/73 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate II, Madurai. The appellant, Chellammal, has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting A.I of the offences punishable Under Section 494, I. P. C, read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and A. 2 to A. 9 Under Section 494. IPC read with Section 109, IPC and Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. It may be noted here that at the time when this appeal was admitted, it was admitted only as against respondents 1 and 2 and the appeal was dismissed as against the rest.3. The facts which led to this criminal appeal, in brief, are as follows -The appellant instituted this criminal complaint against the respondents on the allegation that she is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent (Angamuthu) their marriage having been performed as per Hindu rites and custom about 8 years a...
Tag this Judgment!Non-ferrous Rolling Mills (P) Ltd., by Its Director, Vimalchand Galada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ169
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal raises a point of some nicety concerning the legal position of a Manager in a factory under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The Regional Director of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation at Madras, who is the respondent in this appeal, took the view that the Manager is an employee within the meaning of that Act, in respect of whom the employees' contribution and the employer's special contribution have to be paid to the Corporation. The appellant contested that position and moved the Employees State Insurance Court, Madras, for a ruling on the subject. That Court, however, agreed with the view of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The correctness of that determination is questioned in this appeal.2. The company is a private company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It runs a factory at Valasaravakam village. The factory is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium rods and conductors. The comp...
Tag this Judgment!S. Palanivelu Vs. K. Veradammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ212
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The defendant who lost in both the Courts below is the appellant. The respondent filed the suit for a declaration of her title to the portion of the land shaded blue and marked DEFG in the plaint plan and for recovery of possession thereof and also for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the remaining portion of the suit property. The entire suit property is a land measuring about 10 grounds and 1900 sq. ft. in R.S. No. 3173|14, Block No. 55, Nadavakkam tank area in Purasawalkam. The blue shaded portion marked D.E.F.G. is in the southwestern corner of R.S. No. 3173|14. The respondent is the owner of R.S. No. 3173|14, as per the settlement deed Exhibit A-1, dated 11th June, 1962, executed by her mother Adiammal. She filed the suit alleging that the appellant trespassed into the D.E.F.G. portion of the suit land measuring 5 feet east-west and 63 feet north-south on 21st April, 1968 and that he was att...
Tag this Judgment!Meenambal and ors. Vs. Chockalinga Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad230; (1978)1MLJ398
1. Both these appeals arise out of the decision in O. S. No. 45 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Court, Vellore, A. S. No. 389 of 1969 has been filed by defendants 18 to 22 and A. S. No. 103 of 1970 has been filed by the plaintiff in the said suit.2. The said suit was one for partition of the lands described in Schedule C to the plaint into four shares and of the house described in Schedule B and the properties described in Schedule D into five shares and for allotting the plaintiff one such share after setting aside the partition deed dated 20-4-1951 and the alienations of some of the suit properties by defendans 1 to 3, if need be and for directing the first defendant to render accounts in respect of the joint family properties which were in her management from 1-10-1951 till the date of the filing of the suit. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are brothers, being the sons of one Vengan Chetti, who died on 19-11-1944, by his third wife, the fourth defendant. Vengan Chetti had anothe...
Tag this Judgment!Nagamalai thevar Vs. Pandaram and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Mad347
1. The plaintiff, who lost in both the courts below, is the appellant. He filed the suit for possession of the eastern 85 cents out of 1 acre 87 cents comprised in R. S. 126/3-A called 'Kalpulichanpatti Punjai' in Vikramangalam village, Thirumangalam taluk. The suit property is A schedule property which forms part of B schedule property. The appellant's case was that the entire B schedule property belonged originally to Naga Thevar. The appellant had filed S. C. 312 of 1940 in the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam for recovery of certain moneys due to him from Naga Thevar. After the death of Naga Thevar, pending that suit, his sons Chinnakannun alias Kaluva Thevar and Peyandi Thevar were added as his legal representatives. Subsequently, a decree was obtained in that suit and E. A. 87 of 1942 was filed for transmission of the decree to the original side for execution. Thereafter, the appellant filed E. P. 121 of 1942, and got the entire B schedule property attached in execution of th...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. South India Viscos ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC442(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These three revision cases arise out of the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31st January, 1972. The Tribunal was disposing under the said order three appeals, two relating to assessments under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1967-68 respectively and the third relating to assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1967-68. We shall first take up for consideration the revision cases relating to the assessments made under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The points in dispute in relation to these two cases relate to : (1) assessment of the turnover of sales of rayon and staple fibre waste, (2) the claim for deduction from the taxable turnover of the rebate on sales of rayon yarn and (3) assessment of miscellaneous sales effected by the assessee. With reference to items (1) and (3), the point in dispute is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burm...
Tag this Judgment!imperial Match Works Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1977
Reported in: [1982]51STC397(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 9th April, 1976. The assessment year under consideration is 1970-71. The assessing officer issued pre-assessment notice on 19 th March, 1974 and during the proceedings that were initiated thereby, the assessee had to produce C forms in order to be eligible for exemption claimed by it. The assessee applied for extension from time to time and the last extension was up to 15th May, 1974. As the assessee did not produce any C form by that date, the assessing officer passed an order on 16th May, 1974. The assessee produced the C form on 31st May, 1974. In the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee contended that the time had been requested up to 31st May, 1974, but this was not borne by the record. The appellate authority, therefore, held that as the assessee had failed to produce any C f...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. L.G. Balakrishna a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1977
Reported in: [1979]43STC258(Mad)
ORDERIsmail, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the canteen sales were exempt from tax since the assessee had subsidised 25 per cent of the total expenses in running the canteen, as prescribed by the relevant Government Order. The Tribunal has stated :The total expenses subsidised in regard to the head office at Coimbatore comes to 48 per cent and the branch at Karur comes to 28 per cent. Hence we find that the turnover of Rs. 12,498.00 and Rs. 24,021 respectively are eligible for exemption.2. The learned Additional Government Pleader contends that the Tribunal committed a mistake in taking into account the sum of Rs. 4,800 representing the estimated rental value of the building set apart for running the canteen and the sum of Rs. 1,680 representing the electricity charges as expenses incurred in the running of the canteen. We are unable to accept this contention. As a matter of fact, the assessee claimed that even depreciation ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »