Chennai Court March 1978 Judgments
Sri Pushpagiri Mutt, by Its Peedathipathi Sri Vidya Nrusimha Bharathy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ54
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 4087 of 1969 on the file of the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondents herein are the defendants in that suit. The plaintiff is Sri Pushpagiri Mutt, Cuddappah, Cuddappah District, Andhra Pradesh. From a perusal of the records in the Court below, certain -essential features of the case do emerge out. An Executive Officer was appointed for the plaintiff-Mutt by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration), Andhra Pradesh, in pursuance of a scheme framed therefor. The plaintiff-Mutt Sled the suit for a declaration of title regarding the property at No. 20, Ekambareswarar Agraharam, Park Town, Madras, and for possession of the said property. There is no gainsaying that a Mutt, like an idol is a juridical person and is capable of acquiring, holding and vindicating legal rights through the medium of some human agency, which is ordinarily the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Inland Agencies P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1978
Reported in: [1983]143ITR195(Mad)
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-I, Madras, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench A, has under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, referred the following questions for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that S.R.M.M.C.T.M. Tiruppani Trust fulfils the cqnditions laid down in Section 80G(5)(iii) for the assessment year 1968-69, and donation paid by the assessed to it ranks for deduction under Section 80G '2. The brief facts which led to this reference can be stated thus : The assessee, M/s. Inland Agencies Private Ltd., for the assessment year 1968-69, claimed a deduction under Section 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961, in respect of a donation of Rs. 2,000 paid by it to S.R.M.M.C.T.M. Tiruppani Trust. The ITO disallowed the assessee's Claim in the original assessment completed. On appeal, the AAG, finding that the assessment in the hands...
Tag this Judgment!Chengayya Vs. M.V. Swaminatha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad116
ORDER1. The question that come up for consideration in this revision is with reference to the scope and import of the expression 'any other........ person aggrieved ' occurring in S. 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (Act V of 1920), hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The question arises under the following circumstances. A concern by name Sivanandam Palayakot Co., Guidyattam, which is under voluntary liquidation, filed C. S. No. 14 of 1947 on the Original Side of this Court against A. Kaliappan, the second respondent herein, to recover a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/-, and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, the house property of the judgment-debtor was brought to sale on several occasions, but the sale could not take place for one reason or other. Pending the above proceedings, the judgment-debtor got himself adjudged an insolvent in I. P. No. 8 of 1968 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, obviously under S. 10 of the Act. The result was all his properties, includin...
Tag this Judgment!J.H. Tarapore Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: [1982]133ITR785(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioner herein was a partner in the firm of M/s. Tarapore and Company consisting of himself and one C. S. Loganathan. The said C. S. Loganathan died on May 11, 1971, and, consequently, the said firm stood dissolved. Subsequently, the petitioner has been carrying on business under the same name and style. After the death of the said Loganathan a settlement is said to have been arrived at bet-ween his legal representatives and the petitioner, and the assets and liabilities of the said firm had been divided in terms of the said settlement. 2. On March 5, 1973, the petitioner had been served with a notice purporting to be under Section 182(4) of the I.T. Act calling upon M/s. Tarapore and Company, the new concern, to pay a sum of Rs. 1,49,287 stated to be 30% of the share income of C. S. Loganathan for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1965-66 and 1967-68, Subsequently, an order under Section 154 dated March 30, 1976, has been passed by the first respondent whereby th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sethuratnam and anr. Vs. M. Muthiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad60
1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 712 of 1972 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli are the appellants. The plaintiff (1st respondent) filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 19,030.60 with future interests and costs against defendants 1 to 3. The facts are these: On 9-2-1970 the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 entered into a partnership for the purpose of carrying on business in pumpsets, motors, engines of all descriptions and allied accessories under the name and style of Saravana Traders. The second defendant was the managing partner. The Mayuram Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., (hereinafter called the bank) placed orders with Saravana Traders for the supply of pumpsets of the value of Rs. 24,063.36. according to the arrangement with the bank the firm was to supply pumpsets to the nominees of the bank and on delivery of the pumpsets the bank would make the payment of the price top the firm. As per this arrangement the pumpsets were sent by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Chemical Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1978
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT671(Mad)
ORDER :2. Messers The Calcutta Chemicals Company Limited are manufacturers of cosmetics and toilet preparations on which a duty of Central Excise is leviable on ad valorem basis under item 14 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. For the purpose of determining the assessable value of the various products manufactured by them the company were furnishing to the Department from time to time price lists as required under Rule 173-C of the Central Excise Rules and assessments were made on the basis of the prices so declared and approved by the proper officer. On 19-1-1974 the Company submitted a fresh price list in supersession of all their previous price lists contending that the same was based on the principles enunciated in Supreme Court's Judgment in the Case of A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd., A.l.R, 1973 S.C. 225. The Revised price list furnished by the Company purported to represent only the manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit. In this connection, it may be s...
Tag this Judgment!Deivasigamani Gounder Vs. Authorised Officer, (Land Reforms), Erode
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad71
1. The land owner under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act (Act 58 of 1961), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent, Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Erode, initiated proceedings against the land-owner under the provisions of the Act and by his order dated 7-5-1974, under S. 10 (5) of the Act, held that there was a surplus of 5.079 standard acres. As against this order, the land-owner filed an appeal, L. T. A. No. 266 of 1974, before the Land Tribunal at Coimbatore, and it was disposed of by judgment and decree dated 31-1-1975 of the Land Tribunal, confirming the order of the Authorised Officer. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Land Tribunal Coimbatore.2. Two contentions were put forth before the Land Tribunal by the land owner viz. That the alienations of extents of land covered by sale deeds dated 25-8-1971 and 30-3-1971, should be excluded and that certain extents of land ar...
Tag this Judgment!R. Narasimhachari Vs. Andalammal (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad31
1. One Rangachariar, who died on 31-5-1955, left behind him surviving wife Andalammal and son Narasimhachari. Admittedly the properties possessed by the family were landed properties and one house property, which is the subject-matter of this litigation. In so far as the landed properties are concerned. they were sold at the instance of Andalammal, who is the plaintiff in the present suit, and Narasimhachari, the first defendant therein and others, who were interested, to third parties under Exs. B-1 to B-6. After the sale of such lands, apparently disputes arose between the mother and the son. Namakkal Panchayat Union was occupying the suit property. As demands for payment of rent were made both by the mother and the son, the tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller in H. R. C. O. P. 5 of 1969, marked as Ex. A.2, in the case, which was a petition under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, praying for directions from court as to in what m...
Tag this Judgment!State by Public Prosecutor Vs. K.R. Krishnamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ337
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. These three appeals are by the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor for enhancement of the sentence meted out to the accused who was convicted by the learned III Additional Special Judge, Madras. Division, in three cases, of offences under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court for those offences. It was on his own admission and plea that the accused was convicted as aforesaid by the learned Judge, who has accepted his plea of guilt.2. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that considering the circumstances of the case the sentences meted out to the accused are extremely lenient and are actually not warranted. I am in entire agreement with the learned Public Prosecutor. For an offence under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 2(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for one year. The proviso...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›