Chennai Court January 1978 Judgments
State Bank of India Vs. the Official Liquidator, Representing Straps ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ175
Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Ramaprasada Rao, J. dated 23rd June, 1977 made in Company Application No. 551 of 1976. The applicant in the Company Application is the appellant which is the State Bank of India Madras-I The said Bank instituted a suit, O.S. No. 117 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, which has been transferred to and numbered as C.S. No. 233 of 1974 on the original side of this Court. The suit was originally instituted against 10 defendants, the first defendant being one M/s. Chandra Paper Band, defendants 2 to 9 being the partners of the said first defendant firm and the 10th defendant being the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs 1,99,170-04 with further interest at 101/2 per cent per annum on Rs. 1,25,700-28 at half yearly rests and at 91/4 per cent per annum on Rs. 8,797-85 at monthly rests, from the defendants and in default for a direction for the sale of the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna thevar Vs. Gnanaprakasi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad47
1. This is a Civil revision petition against an order of the learned Appellate Authority (Prinicpal Subordinate Judge, Madurai), allowing the appeal against the order of the learned RentController-cum-District Munsif, Thirumangalam, who dismissed the petition of the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent.2. The tenant who is the revision petitioner herein contended inter alia that he is in possession in pursuance of an agreement of sale in his favour dated 24-11-1970 executed by the respondents herein and Kannan, the son of the first respondent and the brother of the second respondent and that, in any event, as he did not pay the rent during the period alleged under the impression that he is in possession in pursuance of the agreement of sale in his favour, all the terms of which he has performed his default was not wilful. He also contended that not only the respondents herein, namely, Gnanaprakasam Ammal and Jayapalan but also Kanna...
Tag this Judgment!S. Arunagiri Chettiar Vs. Third Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR308(Mad)
Mohan, J. 1. These writ petitions are for prohibition prohibiting the respondents herein from taking recovery proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), relating to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 1,25,858 in pursuance of the demand dated January 29, 1975. 2. The short facts are as follows : The father of the petitioner was a partner in three firms, (1) M/s. S. S. Sannanna Chettiar & Sons, (2) M/s. Shanmugasundaram Textiles, and (3) M/s. Mari Chettiar & Co. The petitioner retired from the firm of M/s. S. S. Sannanna Chettiar & Sons on April 19, 1963. The business of the said firm was continued under a new and different partnership arrangement. In other words, there was a change in the constitution of the firm of M/s. S. S. Sannanna Chettiar & Sons as per the provisions of Section 187(2)(a) of the Act. After the petitioner retired from the partnership, the business was car...
Tag this Judgment!Pechiammal Vs. Punnaivanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad140
1. The defendant in O.S. No.49 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga is the appellant. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.11206-30 due on Exs.A.1 10 A 3 deeds of mortgages executed by the appellant in favour of one Veerammal. Ex. A.1 dated 8-5-1961 is for Rs.3000. Ex A.2 dated 12-4-1962 is for Rupees 1500. Ex. A.3 dated 2-12-1966 is for Rs. 4500. Under Exs.A.4, dated 1-6-1972, the original mortgage Veerammal; assigned her rights under Exs. A.1 to A.3 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.11790. The rate of interest payable under the three mortgage documents is 12% per annum. The plaintiff respondent has further averred that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 1680 towards interest due till 31-12-1966 and the whole amount of interest due till 1-9-1969 and the necessary endorsement therefor had been made on Ex. A.1. It is further admitted that the respondent had received Rs.100 each on 6-9-1970, 17-10-1970, 10-12-1970an...
Tag this Judgment!Villa Venkata Rao Vs. Satyanandam Mummidi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad299; (1978)1MLJ529
ORDERMohan, J.1. This writ petition seeks to quash the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry in M. V. A. No, 37 of 1975 dated 19-11-1976.2. The petitioner, the applicant No. 1, was granted permit on the ground that he was the existing operator of one bus and as' such he had an edge over the new entrants. He had maintained his workshop and workshop arrangements on the way. Thus his claims were taken to be superior than the other applicants. Against this order, the matter was taken up in appeal to the Tribunal. The first respondent's appeal is M. V. A. N. 37 of 1975. The Tribunal posed two questions-- (1) Whether the grant of permit to respondent 1 is justified; and (2) if not, whether any of the two appellants is entitled to the permit. Concerning this, it was found that the grant of permit made by the Regional Transport authority was not correct, because he did not have the necessary financial stability. On an analysis of the materials before it, it came to the c...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Progressive Financiers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR18(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a firm of partnership consisting of five partners, of whom one was a minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The capital of the partnership was Rs. 5 lakhs. The contribution of each partner of the capital was as follows :Rs.1.M.R. Rajakrishna1,25,0002.MinorSunitha Pratap1,87,5003.W.S. Parthasarathy62,5004.W.S. Sethunarayana Babu62,5005.M.S. Rajeswari62,5002. It is seen from the above capital contribution that the shares of capital contribution work out as 25%, 37.5%, 12.5%, 12.5% and 12.5%. An application for registration was made on March 31, 1968, in respect of the assessment year 1967-68. The partnership deed itself was executed on 1st July, 1967. The partnership deed was signed by the guardian on behalf of the minor along with other partners. The application for registration was signed by the major partners. The partnership deed provided that the net profits ascertained shall be divided between the partners in proportion to their shares...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnan Vs. Munusamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad50
1. This is a civil revision petition against the order passed by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), taken by the tenant complaining against the order of eviction passes by the appellate authority under S. 14(1)(b) of the said Act.2. The petition for eviction was dismissed by the first authority on the ground that the requirement of the building for demolishing and erecting a new building on the same site has not been established.3. S. 14(1)(a) and (b) and S. 14(1)(2)(a) and (b) which are necessary for our purpose run as follows-S. 14. Recovery of possession by landlord for reconstruction-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Ss. 12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord, the Controller shall, if he is satisfied-(a) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carri...
Tag this Judgment!Tufflite Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS14D; 1978(2)ELT509(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is for certiorari to quash the order of the Government of India, dated 6th May, 1975 confirming the demand of excise duty made on the petitioner by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore first Division, and the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, in proceedings dated 14th November, 1973 and 24th January, 1974 respectively.The short facts are as follows:-The petitioner company is manufacturing articles made out of glass fibre. The following articles are also manufactured by it-(1) Glass fibre b6ats(2) Glass fibre bath tubs(3) Glass fibre toilet seats(4) Glass fibre wash-basins and other accessories.The above articles are not charged with any excise duty, which is the common case.2. Bath tubs are manufactured and supplied by the company with or without side covers to the customers who need them. Bath tubs vary from 4 ft. to 6 ft. in length and are uniformly 18' in width. These side covers are manufactured with the length from 4 ft....
Tag this Judgment!N. Shantilal Vs. A. Sankarasubha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad13
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petition against the order of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, allowing an application by the judgment debtor for permission to pay the decree amount in monthly instalments of R. 200. The order of the learned Assistant Judge is without jurisdiction. The decree-holder has filed a suit on a mortgage and has obtained a preliminary decree. The preliminary decree has been passed on 22-12-1973 under O. 34, R. 4 C. P. C. As it is not a simple money decree, the provisions of O. 20, R. 11, C. P. C. as amended by this court, are not applicable to the instant case. They do not supersede the provisions of O. 34, R. 4 C. P. C. Therefore, the order of the learned Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is not in accordance with law. That order is, therefore, set aside and the petition of the judgment debtor in C.M.P. 1683 of 1974 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras is dismissed. The civil revision petition is cons...
Tag this Judgment!V. Natarajan Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad390
ORDERMohan, J.1. The petitioner is a rice mill owner run under the name and style of Sri Nataraja Rice Mill at premises No. 68 Sivagamapurani Road, Veilpattanam, Ramanathapuram Dt, under a licence duly granted to him under the provisions of the Rice Milling IndustryRegulation Act, 1958. In addition to hulling paddy, he is also carrying on in the said mill flour mill business. The petitioner's mill hulls paddy of wholesale merchants holding licences for carrying on business in paddy and rice, and the paddy of small farmers, agricultural labourers and others who have stocks of paddy for their domestic consumptions which they desire to hull. Under the terms of the licence he is required to maintain four registers A, B, C and D.2. He was served with a notice dated 19-10-1977 by the District Supply Officer, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai, informing him that as per para. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Rice (Procurement by Levy on Millers) Order 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Order, every wholesale ri...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »