Chennai Court March 1978 Judgments
V. Balakrishna Menon Vs. M.A.K. Govindan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ237
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. This is a petition filed by a tenant to revise the order of the Appellate Authority functioning under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 thereinafter referred to as the Act) directing the eviction of the petitioner herein from the premises in question. Most of the facts are not in controversy. The respondent filed a petition under the provisions of the Act for eviction of the petitioner herein on three different grounds. One was that he bona fide required the premises for his own occupation, the second was that the petitioner has committed wilful default in the payment of the rent and the third was that the petitioner had put the property to a use different from the one for which it was leased out. The petitioner denied all the three grounds. The Rent Controller rejected all the three grounds and dismissed the petition for eviction filed by the respondent herein. Thereupon, the respondent preferred an appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. G. Narasimhan (Decd) (by Lrs)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas375(Mad); [1979]118ITR60(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. Two questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, for the opinion of this court. The questions read as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that a sum of Rs. 64,577 being the deemed dividends assessed in the hands of the various shareholders in the past assessment years, should be deducted from the surplus while determining the ' accumulated profits ' in the hands of the company ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that no capital gain was assessable in the hands of the assessee as there was no extinguishment of any right of the assessee and consequently there was no transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee of any capital assets for the assessment year 1963-64 '2. The year of assessment is 1963-64, the corresponding ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. B. Seshamma Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR314(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The following three questions have been referred to us under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961:'1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 5,557 was income liable to be assessed to tax for the assessment year 1969-70 ? 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 6,197 was income liable to be assessed to tax for the assessment year 1970-71 ? 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 10,971 was income liable to be assessed to tax for the assessment year 1971-72 ' 2. The assessee paid an advance tax during the financial year 1963-64, relevant to the assessment year 1964-65. The assessment was completed on March 22, 1969, resulting in a refund of Rs. 22,219. In computing the refund due, interest amounting to Rs. 5,557 due to the assessee under Section 214 of the I.T. Act wa...
Tag this Judgment!P. Krishnamurthi Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, I.D.O
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1978
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT628(Mad)
Paul, J.1. Cri. M.P. No. 904 of 1978 is for quashing the charges framed against the petitioner in C.C. No, 321 of 1977 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. Crl. M.P. No. 905 of 1978 is a petition to stay the trial of the aforesaid case pending disposal of Crl. M.P. No. 904 of 1978.2. In CC. No. 321 of 1977, the petitioner is being prosecuted by the respondent for an offence punishable under Section 9(1)(b) and (bb) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The respondent laid a complaint against petitioner who was the 4th accused in the trial court and three others of whom the first accused is the partnership firm and the second and third accused are partners of the firm. The petitioner is also being prosecuted as partner of the first accused firm. The Officers of the Central Excise, Preventive Group, Kolhapur, intercepted the lorry KIP 4563 while it was being driven along the Bangalore-fsPoona road on 2-9-1973. The lorry contained bundles of matches. Since the driv...
Tag this Judgment!Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore Vs. the State Transport ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad372
Mohan, J.1. This is rather an unfortunate case. The second respondent (V. C, K. Bus Service) applied for renewal of permit in respect of the buses TNE 5406 and MDB 7206 plying on the inter-State route Coimbatore to Koduvapur for a period of five years from 1-7-1977 for the portions lying in the State of Tamil Nadu. The applications were notified under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), In response to the notification, representations were received from the revision petitioner (Cheran Transport Corpn. Ltd.. Coimbatore) objecting to the renewal. It also stated therein that a draft scheme for the nationalisation of the route under Section 68-C of the Act had been published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 15-9-1976, and temporary permit could be granted under Section 68-F (1-A). It has further stated that the history sheet of the applicant (V. C. K. Bus Service) was bad and no renewal could be granted. The State Transport Authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Vs. M. Ebrahim, Musuee Muthavalli and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad231; (1979)1MLJ189a
1. One Halima Bai executed a deed of Wakf-alal-aulad and the same was registered on 24-1-1935. Under the document, several properties belonging to her were endowed as wakf-alal-aulad. Clause (12) of that deed expressly provides that after deducting the disbursements referred to in the earlier clauses from the income of the endowed properties, the surplus should be divided every month by the muthavalli for the time being among the members of her family from children born to her by Mohamed Musa Sait, her husband, including herself and her husband the said Mohamed Musa Sait in the following manner, namely, two shares for a male and one share for a female for ever so long as there are any and until her property lasts, and should it become extinct, then the income shall be expended for the benefit of the poor Mohammed's, preference being given to the bringing up and the maintenance of Muslim orphans and widows. Cl. (14) provides that in the event of any of the endowed immovable property des...
Tag this Judgment!General Secretary, National and Grindlays Bank Employees' Union Vs. I. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: (1978)ILLJ453Mad
N.S. Ramaswamy, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for declaration regarding the plaintiffs' seniority and consequential relief. The two plaintiffs were originally working in the Lloyds Bank which ultimately merged with the National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. the first defendant in the suit. The second defendant is the National and Grindlays Bank Employees' Union represented by its general secretary. At the time of merger of the Lloyds Bank with the National and Grindlays Bank, hereinafter referred to as the first defendant, it had been agreed that the number of years of service put in by an employee in the Lloyds Bank would be counted regarding his seniority.2. After the merger there is said to be a settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, between the first defendant and the second defendant union (the plaintiffs are members of the second defendant), according to which the seniority of the employees is to be fired city-wise and branch-wise...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board represented by Its Secretary Vs. M. Ebrahim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ189
M.M. Ismail, J.1. One Halima Bai executed a deed of wakf-alal-aulad and the same was registered on 24th January, 1935. Under the document, several properties belonging to her were endowed as wakf-alal-aulad. Clause (12) of that deed expressly provides that after deducting the disbursements referred to in the earlier clauses from the income of the endowed properties, the surplus should be divided every month by the muthavalli for the time being among the members of her family from children born to her by Mohamad Musa Sait, her husband, including herself and her husband the said Mohamed Musa Sait in the following manner, namely, two shares for a male and one share for a female for ever so long-as there are any and until her property lasts, and should it become extinct, then the income shall be. expended for the benefit of the poor Mohammedans, preference being given to the bringing up and the maintenance of Muslim orphans and widows. Clause (14) provides that in the event of any of the e...
Tag this Judgment!A. Annamalai and ors. Vs. Saraswathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad238
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings. It raises a point of construction of Section 15(1) of Tamil Nadu Act XXXVIII of 1972. This enactment was avowedly passed to provide for the relief of certain indebted persons in the State. Briefly stated, the Act confers a right on certain debtors, and in certain conditions, to apply to the Court for scaling down their debts under Section 15. There is a time-limit provide for under this section. The time-limit is six months from the date of publication of the Act. It may be observed that the Act was published in the Gazette on 15th December, 1972. Section 15 contains two sub-sections. Sub-section (1) deals with a case where a decree has been passed before the publication of the Act in the Official Gazette. Sub-section (2), on the other hand, deals with a case where in a respect of a debt payable on the date of the publication of the Act in the Official Gazette, a decree has been passed subsequent to the dat...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Ahammed Vs. the Madras State Housing Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ185
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this revision was a party to an agreement with the first respondent herein. That agreement related to the supply of timber by the petitioner to the first respondent. Admittedly disputes arose with reference to the transactions under the agreement and the petitioner herein pursuant to the clause relating to reference to arbitration presented a petition for arbitration before the second respondent who was the arbitrator named in the agreement. It must be pointed out that the agreement between the parties refers to the Madras Detailed Standard Specifications to form part and parcel of the agreement. The second respondent did not fix any date for enquiry for adjudicating the matters referred to him for arbitration and on 6th April, 1970 he intimated the petitioner that he has made and signed an award on the arbitration petition preferred by the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »