Chennai Court February 1978 Judgments
A.A. Nathan Vs. United India Fire and General Insurance Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1978
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ259Mad
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein was originally appointed by the Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., by an order dated 2-1-1963 as a Probationery Field Officer. The said order of appointment provided that his services might be deemed to be terminated at any time by giving one month's notice on either side. Subsequently he was confirmed as a Field Officer by an office order dated 29-9-1963 with effect from 1-9-1963. He was then promoted as a Development Officer and later as a Development Secretary. Later, by an order dated 19-2-1970 the petitioner was promoted as Development Manager of the Madras Regional office with effect from 1-2-1970. While he was functioning as a Development Manager, a custodian was appointed for the Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., under the Nationalisation Act 17 of 1971. At that stage certain powers given to the petitioner to represent the Society in the matter of signing policies appears to have been withdrawn by the Zonal Manager, as a...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Paper and Boardas Ltd. Vs. Deputy Director of Inspection, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1978
Reported in: [1978]114ITR616(Mad)
JUDGEMENTRAMNUJAN J. - The petitioner is the same in all the above writ petitioners and it is company engaged in the manufacture of different varieties of paper from the year 1962.With a view to encourgage investment in new equity shares and to stimulate industrial output, the Government of India introduced certain special provisions in Chapter XXII-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the grant of tax credit certificates. Section 280ZD coming under that Chpater provides for the grant of credit certificate by way of incentive for the increased production of goods. With a view to carry out the purposes of this section the Government of India framed a scheme called 'Tax Credit Certificate (Excise Duty on Excess Clearance) Scheme, 1965,' hereinafter referred to as the scheme. Under the provisions of the said scheme the amount of tax credit to which a manufacture in paper is entitiled is calculated at the rate of 15 per cent of the excise duty payable on the quantity of excess production dur...
Tag this Judgment!Reethalammal Vs. K. Arumugham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1978
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ536
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The landlady under the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the petitioner in this revision. The first respondent was the tenant and respondents 2 to 5 are arrayed as sub-tenants. The landlady filed a petition for eviction before the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Tenkasi, H.R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1973 under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. Certain facts not in dispute may be stated. The premises originally belonged to the first respondent and he othied the same in favour of one Ganapathi Joshier for Rs. 1,500 on 30th July, 1969 under Exhibit A-1. The first respondent himself took the building on lease from the said Ganapathi Joshier under Exhibit A-2. Under Exhibit A.2 the rate of rent reserved was Rs. 15 per month fora period of three years and thereafter, the rent was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 22.50 Ps. On 15th November, 1972, the said Ganapathi Joshier assigned the othi in favour of the petitioner for Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Panchalai Ammal Vs. Muthulakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad311
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The landlady under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to asthe Act) is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the tenant. The landlady filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the portion occupied by her in the petition premises on the ground that she bona fide required the said portion to effect repairs. This move of the landlady was resisted by the tenant. The petition HRC No. 301 of 1972 was heard by the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, and on a consideration of the materials placed before him, he found that the requirement, as projected by the landlady, is bona fide and ordered eviction of the tenant. The tenant filed an appeal HRA No. 218 of 1974 which came to be heard and disposed of by the II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the requirements of the landlady are not bona fide, and i...
Tag this Judgment!G. Loganayaki Vs. Moolangudi Chit Funds Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas644(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This unnumbered company petition bearing Diary No. 8001 of 1977 is before me on an office objection that the petition, as framed originally and as amended later, is not maintainable and the relief sought for under Section 433(e) read with Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') cannot be granted.2. The petitioner was a subscriber to a chit in the respondent-company in group No. N. Ticket No. 32, for the value of Rs. 50,000. The period of the chit was 50 months and the monthly instalment was Rs. 1,000. The chit commenced on July 17, 1974, and on its usual run would terminate itself on October 17, 1978. The petitioner paid about 20 instalments as per the contract between herself and the stake-holder. On the 21st month, to wit, on March 17, 1976, she bid at the auction and was declared as the highest bidder of the chit and the prize amount thereunder was admittedly Rs. 35,400. Under the chit agreement duly entered into between th...
Tag this Judgment!Periaswami Gounder and ors. Vs. Nachimuthu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad87
ORDER1. These three revision petitions have been preferred against the common order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Erode in E. A. No. 176/74 filed by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 490/71, E. A. No. 189/74 filed by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 369/70 and E. A. No. 658/74 filed by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 2154/71 for ratable distribution. The respondent herein is the decree holder in O. S. No. 490/71 on the file of Sub. Court, Erode. He obtained a money decree and filed an execution petition for sale of the properties of the judgment-debtors. He obtained the permission of the court to bid and set off and purchased the properties in Court auction on 3-1-1974 for Rs. 9,020, which is less than the decree-amount due to him in O. S. No. 490/71. Therefore the three petitions for ratable distribution filed by the respective decree holders were dismissed by the executing Court. The revision-petitioners now contend that they are entitled to ratable distribution. After the decision o...
Tag this Judgment!The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. K.S. Sheik Mohid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad37; [1978]115ITR243(Mad)
1. In the relation to the assessment year 1967-68 of an individual assessee, the Income-tax Appeallate Tribunal has referred the following question of this court for our opinion-"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that there would be no liability to capital gains tax on the sale of import entitlement certificates in the assessee's case ?"The facts necessary for answering this question had been stated in para. 2 of the statement of the case which we reproduce.2. The assessee made remittances under the National Defence Remittance Scheme and such remittances earned import entitlements which were sold by the assessee resulting in a profit of Rs. 19,974/-. The Income-tax Officer assessed the entire amount of Rs. 19,974/- to capital gains tax. The decision was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. But in further appeal before the Tribunal it was ruled that there was no 'capital gains' liable to be taxed. The question is whe...
Tag this Judgment!V. Natarajan Vs. Principal District Judge
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ221
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein was selected and appointed temporarily as a copyist in the District Munsif's Court, Tirumangalam, by the respondent as per his proceedings dated 14th November, 1966. He was discharged on 10th May, 196' for want of vacancy. He was again reappointed as a copyist temporarily as per the respondent's proceedings dated 17th June, 1967, from 19th June, 1967. His services from that day onwards has been continuous and the same were regularised by the respondent in his proceedingi dated 27th May 1970 with effect from 19th June, 1967. He had been declared to have satisfactorily completed his probation on 19th June, 1967.2. However by the proceedings dated 28th November, 1973 the petitioner's services were terminated from 15th December, 1973 on the ground that he has not obtained 40 per cent, of marks in English in the S.S.L.C. Examination and that therefore ha does not have the minimum general educational qualification as required by the rules. The pe...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Steelmet and Alloys Ltd. Vs. B.M. Steel, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad270; (1978)1MLJ468
1. Two applications, Appln. No. 3578 of 1977 by B. M. Steel Pvt. Ltd., and Appn. No. 3595 of 1977 by Maharashtra Bank for similar reliefs were filed on the Original Side of this court under Order 21 Rule 58 C. P. Code, stating that both the applicants as above were the owners of the steel and M. S. rounds or were interested in them and which were at No. 32 Suryanarayana Chetti St, Madras 13, and which according to the company, were their goods and which according to the Bank were goods in and over which they had an enforceable legal right. The appellant as plaintiff instituted a suit CS No. 354 of 1977 on the file of the Original Side of this court against a partnership firm known as B. M. Steel impleading the partners therein as defendants 2 to 6. Contemporaneous with the filing of the suit, an application for attachment before judgment was filed by the plaintiff-appellant. Notice in that application was served on the partnership firm B. M. Steel. When ultimately the application for a...
Tag this Judgment!Amirjan Saheb Vs. Syed Khader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad385
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises is one on a promissory note admittedly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Ex. A-1 D/- 6-4-1966, is the promissory note for a sum of Rs. 1250 so executed. Admittedly this amount represents part of the consideration detained by the defendant in respect of a land purchased by him from the plaintiff. On the same date, namely 6-4-1966, when the promissory note was executed there was an agreement between the parties as per Ex. B-1. That shows that the parties contemplated that there would be litigation regarding the title to the property as the Wakf Board was likely to claim the same to be its property and therefore out of the total consideration of Rs. 4500 a sum of Rs. 1250 was left with the defendant, namely the purchaser himself, so that the said amount could be spent for litigation expenses. The agreement provides that if any litigation starts within five years of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »