Chennai Court December 1978 Judgments
V.V.P. Thangarajut Vs. K.V. Perumal Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Mad7
1. These second appeals. three in number. raise a common point. They arise out of suits for dissolution of partnership filed by a partner against his other partners Two firms are sought to be dissolved in the two actions.2. The controversy between the parties in these second appeals is extremely limited in scope. It is about the precise date when the partnership, in the case of either firm became dissolved. The date of dissolution becomes highly important for the purpose of determining questions relating to accounting between the parties. According to the appellant, the partnerships were dissolved on 6-6-1964 . The courts below rejected this contention. They held that the firms got dissolved on 5-7-1965. The appellant's endeavour in these second appeals is to get, the date of dissolution placed at 6-6-1964.3. Exactly when a partnership gets dissolved in right be thought to be a question which is predominantly, if not wholly, a question of fact. In. this case her, the question has to be...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.A.Ct. V.C.T. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A.K.A.Ct.V.C.T. Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ398
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant' The suit was filed for directing the defendant to render a true and correct account o' all the transactions made by the defendant as plaintiff's agent from 22nd January, 1965 and also of all the amounts received by him as agent of the plaintiff including the amount received from Alagappa and to pay the plaintiff what may be found due by him and also for directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit.2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the plaintiff, on 22nd January, 1965, executed a general power-of-attorney at Karaikudi authorising the defendant, who is the respondent in this appeal, to transact all his business, sell his properties, receive the sale price and other moneys etc., that the defendant, as plaintiff's agent, received from Alagappa 6,50,000 dollars, equivalent to Rs. 16,12000 being the one-fourth share of the plaintiff in the partnership firm which was taken over by Alagappa and...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver, Salem Vs. C.B. Samanthagam Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ115
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2687 of 1978 is filed against an order made in I.A. No. 1495 of 1974 which was filed for grant of extension of time for depositing the sum of Rs. 20,000 into Court as ordered in I.A. No. 214 of 1971 dated 5th March, 1974.2. C.R.P. No. 2724 of 1978 is filed against the order in I.A. No. 1407 of 1974 which was filed by the Official Receiver for directing the plaintiff in the suit to execute a sale of his half share in the suit properties on receiving a sum of Rs. 20,000. Apart from this, I.A. No. 1494 of 1974 was also filed for excusing the delay in filing I.A. No. 1495 of 1974. All these three interlocutory applications were heard and disposed of by the Court below by a common order dated 19th June, 1976.3. In O.S. No. 652 of 1971, the plaintiff, having a half share in the properties, applied for sale of the shares of the defendants by invoking Section 3 of the Partition Act and in I.A. No. 214 of 1971 dated 5th March., 1974, the Court directed him to ...
Tag this Judgment!A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatach ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ104
Varadarajan, J.1. This petition under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the Appellant for amendment of the plaint by omitting the words (1) 'and nothing more' occurring in paragraph 8; (2) 'and pay the plaintiff the amounts that are still with him' less the amounts already paid' occurring in paragraph 9; and (3) 'much more will be due' occurring in paragraph 12 of the plaint.2. The petitioner's suit before the Sub-Court, Devakkottai was for directing the respondent-defendant to render account of all the transactions made by the defendant as the plaintiff's agent from 22nd January, 1965 and also for all the amounts received by the defendant on the plaintiff's behalf as his agent including the amount received from one Alagappa and to pay the petitioner whatever may be found to be due to him. According to the plaint the plaintiff, the defendant and their two brothers Alagappa and Annamalai were partners of A. K. A. CT. V. Firm carrying on business...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishna Gounder Vs. V.A. Vadivel Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ153
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The civil revision petition has been preferred by the judgment-debtor against the order in R.E.A. No. 157 of 1977 in R.E.P. No. 82 of 1974 in O.S.No. 19 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri.2. The first respondent Vadivel Mudaliar obtained a money decree against the petitioner in O.S.No. 19 of 1969. The decree was amended. After the amendment the decree-holder brought the properties to sale in execution of the decree. At the Court-auction sale held on 16th January, 1975, the second respondent purchased the property. On the date on which the Court-sale took place the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1975) (hereinafter called Ordinance No. 1 of 1975) was in force. Under Section 4 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1975 all further proceedings in suits and applications of the nature mentioned in Section 3, in which relief is claimed against an agriculturist, not being proceedings for the a...
Tag this Judgment!V.V.P. Thangaraju Vs. K.V. Perumal Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ469
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These second appeals, three in number, raise a, common point. They arise out of suits for dissolution of partnership filed by a partner against his other partners. Two firms are sought to be dissolved in the two actions.2. The controversy between the parties in these second appeals is extremely limited in scope. It is about the precise date when the partnership, in the case of either firm, become dissolved. The date of dissolution becomes highly important for the purpose of determining questions relating to accounting between the parties. According to the appellant, the partnership were dissolved on 6th June. 1964. The Courts below rejected this contention. They held that the firms got dissolved on 5th July, 1965. The appellant's endeavour in these second appeals is to get the date of dissolution placed at 6th June, 1964.3. Exactly when a partnership gets dissolved might be thought to be a question which is predominantly, if not wholly, a question of fact. In ...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Narayanaswami Iyer Vs. Narayana Sarma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ362
T. Sathiadev, J.1. C.M.A. No. 299 of 1976 is filed against an order made in E.A. No. 368 of 1975 which was filed to transfer the decree for collecting the trial Court's costs from the plaintiff by the first defendant as provided in A.S. No. 443 of 1967 of the High Court. Madras. This application was ordered on the ground that the decree can be executed even though at the time when the decree was passed by the High Court, the 8th appellant who was the 10th defendant in the suit had died on 28th May, 1972 which was anterior to the disposal of the appeal an 9th August, 1973 and the legal representatives of the 8th appellant hat not been brought on record. The counsel for the appellant contends that the decree made in A.S. No. 443 of 1967 which was filed against O.S. No. 95 of 1965 was a joint and indivisible decree and the reliefs decreed being common, since the legal representatives of the 8th appellant had not been brought on record in time, the entire decree is a nullity and it is open...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Production Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)11CTR(Mad)174; [1980]122ITR136(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The proceedings relate to the assessment under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (Central Act 14 of 1963), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and the assessment year concerned is 1963-64. The assessee had filed its return of chargeable profits according to the requirement of law for the year 1963-64, but the actual assessment order was passed by the ITO on July 29, 1968. The assessee put forward a contention that the order dated July 29, 1968, being beyond four years from March 31, 1964, the end of the assessment year in question, the ITO had no jurisdiction to make the order of assessment since he had to make the order of assessment within four years of the end of the assessment year. This contention of the assessee was rejected all through by the AAC and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Thereupon, the assessee applied to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for a reference of the following question to this court and that is how the matter has come up before this court:'Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal Vs. the Special Tahsildar (LA.) Miscellaneous Scheme and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ26
S. Mohan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a reference made under sections, 30 and 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act.2. An extent of 3 acres 68 cents in S. No. 18/5 of Eraravur village in Saidapet Taluk, was acquired for the purpose of establishing a thermal station in Eraravur village. A compensation totalling Rs. 67,185-30 was deposited into Court. Since there were disputes concerning this amount, a reference was made under sections 30 and 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The question arose this way. The claimant (Lakshmi Ammal), who is the appellant herein, put forth a claim on the basis that the property belonged to her absolutely under a registered will and testament of Ponnambala Mudaliar, her paternal grandfather. The will is dated 18th October, 1918. The said Ponnambala Mudaliar died in 1919. The will was duly probated in the High Court of Madras. Under the terms of the will, he created a life interest in respect of his properties in favour of his second wife Sundarammal with...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. M.K.S. Vanavarayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1978
Reported in: [1980]122ITR184(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. These references relate to levy of penalty under the provisions of the W.T. Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '). We are concerned with assessment years 1962-63 to 1967-68. The assessee in this case is an agriculturist. With regard to the assessment years in question, he did not file the return for the purpose of wealth-tax within the time prescribed by the statute and he filed voluntary returns on December 14, 1970. After having filed the returns the assessee filed an application before the Addl. Commissioner, Madras-II, on January 2, 1971, requesting him to waive the penalty imposable on him for not filing the returns in time. In other words, he expressly invoked the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 18(2A) of the Act. The Commissioner passed an order on July 19, 1971. He reduced the penalty leviable for all these years to 25 per cent. of the minimum penalty leviable and called upon the WTO to pass orders accordingly. Admittedly, this order of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »