Chennai Court December 1978 Judgments
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Pappathi Anni (by L. Rs.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1978
Reported in: [1981]127ITR655(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This reference has been made at the instance of Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras, on the following question :'Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transfer of property by the assessee to her son by way of allotment under the deed of; partition dated November 12, 1959, was not a taxable gift within the meaning of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 '2. The assessee in this case is one Pappathi Anni who is no more and whose legal representative has been brought on record. She was the widow of one Srinivasan, who died on December 14, 1953. There was a partition between Srinivasan and his son, Thiagarajan, of certain ancestral properties under a deed dated April 8, 1953. On the death of Srinivasan, as he had not left any will, succession certificate was applied for by the assesseeand her divided son, Thiagarajan, as the only heirs of Srinivasan in March, 1954. The succession certificate was granted in May, 1954. An extension of the succession certificate was ...
Tag this Judgment!Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. J. Satagopan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1978
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ163Mad
Natarajan, J.1. This petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction to quash the order of the second respondent in Appeal No. 3 of 1974 dated March 31, 1975.2. The first respondent was employed as junior statistical officer under the petitioner. He resigned his employment on November 29, 1972, in terms of a voluntary retirement scheme then in force, after completing a continuous service of about fifteen years. It would appear the first respondent tendered his resignation with a view to take up a more profitable assignment elsewhere. The first respondent claimed payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Gratuity Act), but the petitioner held that since he was not employed in the factory or mine he will not be entitled to payment of gratuity, in accordance with the provisions of the Gratuity Act. The first respondent was, therefore, paid gratuity as per the ru...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kalyanakrishnan Vs. Authorised Officer (Land Reforms)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ132
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. Between the date of commencement of Tamil Nadu Act LVIII of 1961, as amended by Act XVII of 1970 and the notified date, the petitioner herein, had transferred certain lands under two documents in favour of two persons on 18th February, 1970 and 16th February, 1970 by way of gift deeds. The gift deed dated 16th February, 1970 comprised of 1.80 acres equivalent to 1.5 standard acres, and the gift deed, dated 16th February, 1970 comprise of 1.295 standard acres. Thus the total extent covered by the two gift deeds was 2.975 standard acres. The Authorised Officer treated these two gift deeds as void under Section 22 and included these lands as part of the holding of the petitioner and determined his total extent at 16.964 standard acres. That means, there was a surplus of 1.946 standard acres on the date of the commencement of the Act. The inclusion of the lands gifted away by the petitioner in his holding was challenged by him by filing an appeal before the Land Tri...
Tag this Judgment!Hajia Aiysha Nachiar Kalvi Arakkattalai by Its Trustee Hajia S.M.i. Ay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ366
ORDERS. Nainarsundaram, J.1. The revision petitioner is Hajia Ayisha Nachiar Kalvi Arakkattalai, Nagore, by its Trustee Hajia S.M.I. Ayisha Nachiar, Nagore. Proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, Act LVIII of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, were initiated by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Nagapattinam, against Tmt. Hajia S.M.I. Ayisha Nachiar. It has been found that she gave away an extent of 10.50 standard acres of lands to the petitioner Trust. Since this Trust by itself could come within the definition of 'person' under Section 3(34) of the Act, the holdings of the Trustees themselves were subject to separate assesssment under the provisions of the Act. The Authorised Officer countenanced an exclusion under Section 3(22) of the Act of an extent of Order 67 standard acres and held that the net holdings of the Trust came to 9.83 standard acres. The trustee put forth a contention that the Trust is of a nature which would come ...
Tag this Judgment!G.P. Govindarajulu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ142
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein held lands of an extent of 15.31 standard acres on the commencement of Tamil Nadu Act LVIII of 1961 as amended by Act XXXVII of 1972. Another extent of 3.42 standard acres had been endowed by the petitioner to a trust called 'Krishna Bhagvan Trust' under a document marked as Exhibit B-1, dated 24th January, 1970. The said land endowed by him for the above trust was proposed to be included in his holding by the Authorised Officer. That was objected to by the petitioner. But, his objection was overruled and the trust lands were included in the petitioner's holding and his total holding was determined at 18.73 standard acres. The view of the Authorised Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the Land Tribunal but without success. The petitioner has, therefore, approched this Court by way of this revision petition.2. According to the petitioner, the lands are admittedly held by the trust and that no part of the income from the said trus...
Tag this Judgment!Shanmughasundaram (Unsound Mind) by Guardian Mother Bagya Rathnammal V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ190
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1. This petition has been filed against an order in I A. No. 483 of 1976 in O. S. No. 149 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Erode That I. A. came to be filed by the 1st defendant for her appointment as the guardian of the 3rd defendant, who, though a major, was stated to be of unsound mind. There was no counter filed and when the matter came up for final orders the learned Subordinate Judge by his order dated 28th April, 1976 cryptically observed:The 3rd defendant appeared in person on 17th April, 1976. I found him on examination as a man quite sane. Hence, I do not find that the petition is maintainable. Petition is dismissed.The unsuccessful applicant has now come forward with the present revision.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below was wrong in passing the Order in the manner it did. It was also submitted that a regular judicial enquiry as to the lunacy or insanity should have been conducted and conclusion arrive...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.S. Jayaram Vs. A. Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ301
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This civil revision petition arises in certain proceedings following the execution of an order of eviction obtained by a landlord against his tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Under Section 18 of the Act an order of eviction shall be executed by a civil Court as if it were a decree passed by it. In this case, the landlord moved the District Munsif's Court, Nagercoil, in execution, and obtained an order for vacant possession. But since the building was found locked, he moved the Court for breaking open the lock. This order was granted. The Amin of the Court then proceeded to the building, had the lock broken open, and gave delivery of possession to the landlord But at the time of delivery of vacant possession, there were found inside the premises several items of moveable property, such as paddy and rice bags, empty jute bags, cocoanuts, pieces of furniture etc., belonging to the tenant. Since the tenant was not ther...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu Alias Chinnakannammal and ors. Vs. Manickkammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ8
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Munsif of Krishnagiri in O.S. No. 221 of 1974 dated 8th April, 1976. The plaintiff is the sister of the first defendant. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant is the brother of the second defendant. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff and it was in the occpation of a nephew of her father-in-law. According to her, she could not recover possession inspite of her obtaining a decree. It was stated that the first defendant suggested to her to make appropriate provision in his favour in respect of the suit properties so that his sons would get possession of the properties at least after her lifetime. The plaintiff agreed to this arrangement and she claimed that she affixed her thumb impression on certain blank papers on the basis that the said blank papers would be used for writing a will in the manner contemplated by the parties....
Tag this Judgment!V. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. P. Vaidyanatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ327
M.M. Ismail, J.1. Both these second appeals arise out of the final decree proceedings in O.S. No. 47 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode. Second Appeal No. 619 of 1974 has been preferred by the first defendant in the suit, while Second Appeal No. 1473 of 1974 has been preferred by the plaintiff in the suit. Though the suit for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts was dismissed by the trial Court in the first instance, the lower appellate Court reversed the conclusion on 6th November, 1962 and passed a preliminary decree for dissolution and rendition of accounts and gave detailed directions as to how the accounts should be rendered. The matter came up in second appeals to this Court and I dismissed the second appeals by my judgment dated 4th March, 1968 in Second Appeal Nos. 1700 of 1962 and 121 of 1963, subject to a slight modification in the decree of the lower Appellate Court. It is thereafter final decree proceedings took place. ...
Tag this Judgment!E.V. Ganapathi Iyer and anr. Vs. V. Venugopal (Died) and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1978
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ411
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in O.S. Nos. 6422 and 6423 of 1968.2. A.S. No. 95 of 1973 : The plaintiff in O.S. No. 6422 of 1968 has directed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in the said suit by the learned trial Judge dismissing his claim against defendants 1 and 2 therein though it was decreed as against the third defendant.3. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Its. 17,350 with costs against defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally, on the following allegations: The plaintiff and the first defendant along with others promoted a company under the name and style of General Meters and Measurements Private Limited at Madras, which was incorporated, on 12th September, 1961, which was later converted into a public company on 7th October, 1963 by changing its name as General Meters and Measurements Limited, with the plaintiff and the first...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »