Chennai Court March 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.
V. Sridhar, President, Sri Rao Bahadur Vemur Ranganathan Chetty Charit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ437
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. One Vemur Ranganathan Chetty of Triplicane left a will dated 30th January, 1949 bequeathing all his properties to be taken over after his life- time by the executors who were also the trustees under a settlement deed dated 28th January, 1949 executed by him. Under the settlement deed he directed the members of the Governing Body of Sree Venkateswara Students Hostel, Triplicane, be appointed as trustees. He also directed the performance of certain charities and religious services mentioned therein. Clause 6 of the settlement deed directed that the trustees shall after the expiry of one year from the time of his death obtain vacant possession of premises No. 7, South Mada Street, Triplicane and Nos. 31 and 35, Thulasingaperumal Koil Lane, Triplicane, from the tenants and convert them into a hostel for women belonging to any of the four communities of Hindus provided they are vegetarians and on payment of reasonable occupational charges as in vogue in Sree Venkateswara...
Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax Ii Vs. M. C. Chockaliangam an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Mad)0021B
ORDERKoshal, J. - By this judgment I shall dispose of three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India, namely Writ Petitions No, 1673 to 1675/74 in each one of which Respondent No. 1 is a person holding land which has been held by the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) not to be liable to the levy of tax under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the land had been exempted from the payment of quit rent and that therefore. S. 23 of the Act absolved it from liability to tax thereunder. The petitioner in each of the three case is the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras who has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer that the order of the Tribunal in each case be quashed by a Writ of Certiorari.2. S. 23 of the Act says that the Urban lane tax payable under the Act in respect of any urban land would be in lieu of six types of liabilities to which such ...
Balasubramaniam and anr. Vs. Purushothaman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad228; (1978)1MLJ187
Ismail, J.1. Defendants 3 and 5 who are the legal representatives of the first defendant in O. S. No. 97 of 1968, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi, who lost before the courts below, are the appellants herein. Respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs, instituted the suit for declaration of title to, and recovery of possession of the suit properties after setting aside two sale deeds dated 25-4-1955 marked as Ex. B-3 and 4-8-1959 marked as Ex. B-4, executed by the second defendant, mother of the plaintiffs, on her own behalf and as guardian of the plaintiffs, in favour of the first defendant. There is no dispute about the fact that the properties were settled on the secere defendant and the plaintiffs. Equally there is no dispute about the fact that the second defendant executed the two sale deeds, Ex. B-3 for a consideration of Rs. 600 and Ex. B-4 for a consideration of Rs. 1800 purporting to act on her behalf as well as on behalf of her minor children. The suit ...
M.S. Govindarajan Vs. the General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ304
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Chargeman Grade I in the Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi (hereinafter referred to as the H.V.F.) on the 9th July 1963. Respondents 3 and 4 who were then holding posts of Chargemen Grade II in an Ordnance Factory at Jabalpur (hereinafter called the J.O.F.) were recruited as Chargemen Grade I in the H.V.F. on the 5th of June, 1964, and the 14th of April, 1964 respectively. Shortly afterwards the said two respondents were promoted to the rank of Assistant Foreman in the J.O.F. which circumstance, however, did not entitle them to claim the posts of Assistant Foremen in the H.V.F. as the latter were then being filled by direct recruitment only. Nevertheless the General Manager of the H.V.F. passed orders promoting them from the posts of Chargemen Grade I to those of Assistant Foremen with effect from the 13th of December, 1965 and the 23rd February, 1966 subject to the express condition that the promotion of both of them would be 'witho...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Modern Radio Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1977
Reported in: [1977]40STC366(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The department itself has assessed the respondent only on the ground that the goods in question fell under item 41 dealing with electrical goods. If so, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal has committed any error in holding that the said goods come within the scope of the G. O., namely, G. O. Ms. No. 976, Revenue, dated 28th March, 1959, giving exemption on sales of electrical hearing-aids and accessories from tax. It is not in dispute that the goods which were the subjectmatter before the Tribunal were dry-cells used in hearing-aids. Equally, it is not in dispute that hearing-aids could not be made use of without the cells. Hence there can be no difficulty in characterising such sales, in such a context, as sales of accessories of hearing-aids. Consequently, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the tax revision petition is therefore dismissed....
Eni Ammal Vs. Soosai Michael Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1977
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ146
Varadarajan, J.1. The plaintiff, who succeeded in the trial Court but lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. She filed the suit for redemption of an othi under Exhibit A-1 dated 6th May, 1955 executed by her husband Mayakrishna Konar in favour of one Mayilerumperumal. Mayakrishna executed a settlement deed dated 21st April, 1964 in favour of the appellant and subsequently cancelled it and deserted her. Thereafter he executed an othi deed, Exhibit A-1, dated 6th May, 1955 in favour of Mayilerumperumal. The appellant filed O.S. No. 168 of 1955 in the District Munsif's Court, Ambasamudram, against her husband Mayakrishna for partition and separate possession of a half share and also for her maintenance on a charge of certain properties, including the present suit properties, impleading the mortgagee Mayilerumperumal as the second defendant in the suit. She obtained a preliminary decree for partition and maintenance at Rs. 15 per mensem on a charge of the suit properties ...
S.K. Subbiah Pillai Vs. Radhakrishnan, Special Officer for Salaimangal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ497
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. A dispute between the Salaimangalam Co-operative Stores Limited, a Co-operative Society which is hereinafter referred to as the Society, and the petitioner who was a member of that Society, was referred to the arbitration of the Co-operative Extension Officer, Ammapet, who gave his award dated the 31st August, 1970, holding the petitioner liable for a sum of Rs. 3,066-05p. to the Society. The petitioner went up in appeal to the District Judge, Thanjavur, acting as the Tribunal under Section 96 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That appeal, however, was found by the Tribunal not to be entertainable, that the Society had gone into liquidation during its pendency and that Section 89 of the Act was a bar to it. That Section states:Save in so far as is expressly provided in this Act, no civil Court shall take cognizance of any matter connected with the winding up or cancellation of the registration of a registered socie...
The Firm of Shamlal and Co. and ors. Vs. V.R.C. Rajagopala Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Mad340
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed by them for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,490 due under a promissory note dated 21-4-1966 and for directing the defendants to pay the amount in court, in default of which, directing the plaint schedule properties to be sold for realisation of the amount so decreed. It appears that the plaintiffs, a firm of partnership, were lending moneys to the defendant as and when he wanted a loan. On 21-10-1964, the defendant executed a security document under which he gave his self-acquired properties as security for the due payment of all moneys that might be borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff under hundies, promissory notes, accounts and cheques and giving right to the plaintiffs to proceed against the security for realisation of the moneys due, in default of payment. On 21-4-1966, the plaintiffs lent a sum of Rs. 6,000 under a promissory note executed by the defendants. On the ground that he had defaulted in payment of the money as...
R. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1977
Reported in: [1977]110ITR535(Mad)
Mohan, J. 1. The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the second respondent (the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, .Tiruthuraipoondi) since 1958-59. For the assessment year 1969-70, the petitioner was permitted to compound the tax payable by him on an extent of 50.36 ordinary acres equivalent to 29.73 standard acres by the second respondent. During the assessment year 1970-71, by mistake, according to the second respondent, he was permitted to compound on an extent- of 15.19 ordinary acresequivalent to 8.83 standard acres only. In reducing the holding of the petitioner, the second respondent deducted an extent of 35.47 ordinary acres stated to have been given to the petitioner's two minor sons and three minor daughters under the partition deed dated March 26, 1969. For the assessment year 1970-71, in view of this mistake, the petitioner was called upon to pay the tax of Rs. 14.96 only and a similar order was repeated for the assessment year 1971-72. On a further scrutiny of the reco...
indira Chemical Agency Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1977
Reported in: [1979]119ITR569(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The assessee was a partnership firm with six partners carrying on business in the purchase and sale of chemicals and dye stuffs. This firm was dissolved on July 14, 1971. But still there were transactions which resulted in the income assessable in the assessment year 1963-64, for which the relevant previous year ended on 31st March, 1963. In the present reference we are concerned with the assessment years 1959-60 and 1963-64. In making the assessment for the assessment year 1963-64, the ITO rejected the book results and estimated the income at Rs. 5,00,000 as against Rs. 1,27,540 returned by the assessee. On appeal, the AAC set aside that assessment with a direction to the ITO to re-do it. Thereafter, the assessee filed a petition on July 24, 1969, under Section 271(4A) agreeing to an addition of Rs. 50,000 for the assessment year 1959-60 and Rs. 71,000 for the assessment year 1963-64. It was, however, found that the capital account as on April 1, 1963, showed an exce...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »