Chennai Court November 1978 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mir Mohamed Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1978
Reported in: [1981]128ITR215(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court, pursuant to the direction of this court made in T.C.P. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1971 dated March 2, 1972 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalties of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 25,000, levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the respective assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63?'2. A business in the name of M. M. Ali Motor Service was being carried on by Mir Madhi Hussain, father of the assessee, till his death and thereafter by the assessee himself. In the assessments for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58, the assessee claimed that one-eighth of the income from that business was diverted by an overriding title to his mother, who was an heir under the Mohamedan Law, entitled to one-eighth share in the estate of the deceased, Mir Madhi Hussain. This claim was accepted...
Tag this Judgment!R.J. Mehta and Co. Represented by Its Partners Vs. Prootam Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ19
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The unsuccessful landlord before the Appellate Authority in proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is the petitioner. The petitioner is a partnership company in which there are three partners, Mawaharlal Mehta, Rasiklal Mehta, and Bhismachandra Mehta. It is admitted that this partnership, owns premises No. 79/A and B, Sambudoss Street, Madras and they are in occupation of shop No. 12 in the said premises. The petitioner has also another business in the same shop No. 12 in the ground-floor the name and style of which is Bombay Hardware Syndicate. In this partnership the father of the three partners already referred to is also a partner. The claim of the petitioner partnership, which we would call the A partnership, sought for possession of shop No. 13, Which is adjacent to shop No. 12 in the occupation of the tenant-respondent on the ground that the partnership business of the Bombay Hardware Syndicate (hereinafter ...
Tag this Judgment!The United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited Representi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1978
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ112
G. Ramanujam, J.1. These two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore in respect of two claims made by two sets of individuals in respect of two deaths caused by the same accident.2. On 31st December, 1971, at 1-30 A.M. three persons, Ibrahim, Gangadharan Nambiar and Moideen Kutty were proceeding from south to north on Jail Road, Coimbatore after attending a film. One T.C. Ganesan who was driving his car, M.D.A. 3737, came behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Ibrahim and Gangadharan Nambiar. Gangadharan Nambiar died on the spot and Ibrahim died in the hospital sometime thereafter. The said T.C. Ganesan fled away from the place of accident without giving even the immediate first aid to the injured. He was charged by the police under is Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code and on admission he was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The widow and children of Ibra...
Tag this Judgment!Kasthuri and ors. Vs. Ramasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ741
ORDERMaheswaran, J.1. Kasthuri B.Sc. B.Ed., the first revision pttitiontr (htrtinafttr re- ferred to as the petitioner) married Ramasamy B.Sc. B.Ed, the respondent, on 14-7-1971, at Rettaiyoorani in accordance with the custom of their caste. A child Suresh was born to them on 3-7-1972. The respondent wanted to marry one Vallinayagi of Ponnagararn, who is also a B.Sc. and B.Ed. The petitioner did not agree, and therefore, he turned the petitioner and her child Suresh out of his house in or about 1973. At the intervention of some mediators, she was again taken in the month of August 1973. The respondent again requested the petitioner to give him her consent for a second marriage which request the revision petitioner again turned down, and again the respondent sent her away to the house of the mother of the petitioner in or about Nov. 1.973. At that time she was pregnant and she was delivered of a female child on 9-2-1974. The petitioner was not taken back by the respondent, and she is le...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudham Junior Basic School, Srivilliputjur Vs. the District Educat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad167
1. The Correspondent-Manager of Velayudham Junior Basic School, Srivilliputtur, seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or direction calling for the records culminating in the challenged order dated 3-10-1972 passed by the respondent and to quash the same and for other incidental directions. Though the petitioner-institution was founded in 1908, we have authentic information from the records that it was granted permanent recognition, under the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920 (VIII of 1920) which held the filed till Madras Act 2 of 1939 was passed. The school is a Junior Basic School catering to the needs of the pupils in Srivilliputtur and is said to the popular. On account of wilful neglect of duty, gross insubordination and activities prejudicial to the institution, one of the teachers, R. Sakuntala Kanakabai's services were sought to be dispensed with for which purpose permission was sought from the Deputy Inspector of Schools for such due termination of...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudham Junior Basic School, Through Its Correspondent, and Manager ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ49
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The Correspondent-Manager of Velayudham Junior Basic School, Srivilliputtur, seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or direction calling for the records culminating in the challenged order, dated 3rd October, 1972 passed by the respondent and to quash the same and for other incidental directions. Though the petitioner-institution was founded in 1908, we have authentic information from the records that it was granted permanent recognition under the Madras Elementary Education Act (VIII of 1920), which held the field till Madras Act II of 1939 was passed. The school is a Junior Basic School catering to the needs of the pupils in Srivilliputtur, and is said to be popular. On account of wilful neglect of duty, gross insubordination and activities prejudicial to the institution, one of the teachers, R. Sakuntala Kanakasabai's services were sought to be dispensed with for which purpose permission was sought from the Deputy Inspector of Schools ...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.A. Karuppanna thevar, Jayalakshmi Vilas Transport Vs. the Regional ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ57
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The petitioner impugns the order of the respondent in Memo. No. R. 27742/ B-1/76, dated 6th July, 1976 demanding a sum of Rs. 22,484 towards payment of tax and penalty for his stage carnage bearing registration No. MDB 2250 and plying on the route Coimbatore to Karaidibavi viz Singanallur, Ondiputhur, Chinthamampudur, Sulur, Sulur Aerodrome and Paruvai. He therefore prays for the issue for a writ of certiorari, or any other writ or direction to quash the impugned order.2. The stage carriage MDB 2250, was originally owned by one S.S. Venkatrama Thevar. During the quarter 1st April, 1974 to 30th June, 1974, he plied the bus till 23rd April, 1974 and thereafter stopped the vehicle. As per Rules he should have paid the quarterly tax for the vehicle on or before 18th April, 1974 but, he failed to remit the tax. By notice dated 23rd April, 1974 and 14th May, 1974, he was called upon to pay the full tax for the quarter and as against these demands, he filed Writ Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Govindasami Padayachi and ors. Vs. Kalyanasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ296
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 388 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Valangiman, who failed in both the Courts below, are the appellants. The respondent herein filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3000 as damages from the defendants who are his lessees on the ground that the lease deeds prohibit them from raising any crop other than paddy but that they had raised, contrary to the terms of the lease deeds, sugarcane in the suit property in the year 1969 and cut and carried away the sugarcane crop without giving the lessor's share. According to the plaintiff on account of the sugarcane cultivation, the utility of the soil has been much impaired and the defendants have enriched themselves unlawfully by raising sugarcane crops in the lands contrary to the terms of the leased deeds. The plaintiff therefore claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 1000 per year for three faslis from 1377 to 1379.2. The substantial defence to the suit was that there Was no prohi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. S.P. Shanmugha Kesari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: [1980]121ITR403(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this petition under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, the CWT has asked for reference of the following two questions :' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount deposited in a branch of the Indian Bank located in Colombo is a deposit held in a bank to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, applies ' 2. The assessee, an individual, in submitting wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1975-76, claimed exemption under Section 5(1)(xxvi) of the W.T. Act in respect of a deposit of Rs. 13,500 made with the Indian Bank at its Colombo branch. The WTO rejected this for exemption. But, on appeals, the AAC and the Tribunal have granted the exemption under Section 5(1)(xxvi). The CWT, not being ...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppusami Gounder Vs. Palaniswami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ423
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The defendant, who had succeeded in the trial Court, but lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his right to use the suit pathway lying in S. No. 880 in Nilai Village in Dharapuram taluk for reaching the adjoining S. No. 867 of the same village. It is common ground that S. No. 880 belonged originally to the joint family of the defendant and his two brothers Periaswami and Rakkianna. In the partition effected between the three brothers under Exhibit A-2, dated 26th September, 1970, they left a common pathway in S. No. 880. At that time, the plaintiff was the owner of S. No. 867 which adjoins the pathway kept in common by the three brothers who got S. No. 680 divided leaving a common pathway for reaching their respective shares. Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased Periaswami's share in S. No. 880 with the pathway right from Periaswami's s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »