Chennai Court April 1978 Judgments
R. Radha Vs. C.R. Govindarajulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad399
1. The civil revision petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the landlady against the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority functioning under the Act. The petitioner herein filed R. C. O. P. No. 163 of 1973 before the Rent Controller, Coimbatore for eviction of the respondent herein on two grounds, namely, the respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rent and secondly the landlady petitioner bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority held against the petitioner on both these grounds and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent under Section 10 of the Act. It is to revise these orders C. R. P. No. 2271 of 1976 has been preferred.2. C. M. P. No. 12384 of 1977 has been filed under Section 11(4) of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!H.N. Habib and Bros. and ors. Vs. Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1978
Reported in: (1979)ILLJ383Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is the Receiver appointed by the Court in O.S. No. 219 of 1972 on the file of the sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli. That was a suit for administration of the estate of two brothers, Nazrulla and Habibulla. One of the businesses which the brothers carried on was the business of drapers and tailors. During the pendency of the suit Nazrulla died and his legal representatives were brought on record. In the suit some of the parties wanted the said business to be closed on the ground that it is incurring loss. But this was resisted by the other parties who wanted the continuation of the business pending suit. The Court, however, felt that since loss is being incurred in the business, closure of the business will be in the interest of the parties and directed retrenchment of the persons employed in that business. The petitioner, who is the Receiver appointed in that suit, carried out the directions of the Court by closing down the business and terminating the se...
Tag this Judgment!Kanyalal Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented by the Join ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS74D
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. This writ petition coining on for hearing on Tuesday the 11th day of April 1978, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, the order of the High Court, dated 6.1.1975'and made herein, and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order in Order No. 8 of 1974, dated 12.2.1974 on the file of the respondent comprised in the return of the respondent to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. D. Madanchand Chopda, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Mr. T. Chengalvaroyan, Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent and this petition having been posted this day for orders, the Court made the following Order:The petitioner herein is a proprietary concern doing pawn-broker's business at No. 60, Wallajah Road, Worriyur, Trichirapalli. The said business premises was searched by the officers of the Central Excise on 14.2.70 and unaccounted primary gold, gold coins and new ...
Tag this Judgment!Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd. Vs. Srinivasa Roadways, Madurai and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad14
ORDER1. In both these review petitions the Kodaikkanal Motor Union (P) Ltd., Madurai, is the petitioner O. P. No. 75 and 144 of 1968 are Motor Accidents Claims Petitions for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. On 3-9-1967 at about 5-30 p. m. between mile stones 274/4 and 274/5. In Madurai Dindigul road, there was a collision between bus MDU' 6991 belonging to the Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd., and lorry MDA 1440 belonging to Srinivasa Roadways Ltd. As a result of that accident, one Sundaramurthi who was a professor and a person by name Saroja and others sustained injuries. The widow of Sundaramurthi, namely, one Thailambal and three others filed O. P. 75 of 1968 for compensation. Saroja also filed a petition O. P. 144 of 1968 for compensation.2. From the decision of the Tribunal appeals were taken in C. M. A. No. 262 and 263 of 1970 and this court found that the driver of the bus MDU 6991 belonging to the Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd., was responsible for the accident by his...
Tag this Judgment!National Match Works, Sivakasi Vs. S.T. Karuppanna Nadar (Died) and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad157
Varadarajan, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment of Maharajan J. in C. M. A. No. 164 of 1970, whereby the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Madras, the second respondent, made on 15-4-1970, in Appln. No. 316827 filed by the deceased first respondent was confirmed overruling the appellants' objections.2. The trade with which we are concerned in this appeal is in safety matches. The appellant is the owner of the Trade mark label 'Anil', the Tamil equivalent of 'Squirrel'. The appellant's device consists of a Squirrel sitting on its hind legs on a tree branch with its forelegs raised and holding a nut close to its mouth. The figures of the Squirrel and the tree branch are in greenish background with the legend 'anil' printed in bold white letters at the top and the words 'Safety Matches' in while letters at the bottom, and the words ' The national match works, Sivakasi' in small letters in black printed below the tree branch and above the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax and anr. Vs. Victoria Technical ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]120ITR358(Mad)
Varadarajan, J.1. T.C. No. 383 of 1974 arises out of a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', at the instance of the revenue. The question referred in that case for the opinion of this court is this :'Whether the income derived by the assessee from its General Fund and South Indian Women Workers Executive Committee Fund is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1971-72 '2. The Tribunal at first did not refer another question which also was included in the application of the revenue for reference to this court, but it has been ordered by this court to refer that question also for the opinion of this court and that question has been referred in T.C. Nos. 780 to 789 of 1976 for the opinion of this court under Section 256(2) of the Act. The identical question referred in those cases relating to each of the same assess...
Tag this Judgment!B. Seetharama Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR705(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein was originally assessed on an extent of 20.08 acres of wet lands and 26.86 acres of dry lands in the year 1971-72, under the Travancore-Cochin Agricultural Income-tax Act. Subsequently for the assessment year 1972-73, the petitioner has filed a composition application for 13.34 acres of wet lands only, after excluding Certain lands settled by him in favour of his wife and daughter. The Agrl. ITO,however, issued a notice on July 18, 1972, calling upon the petitioner to give consent for being assessed for the entire holding. The petitioner did not give his consent on the ground that the lands settled in favour of his wife and daughter have to be excluded from his holding. The Agrl. ITO however, held that since the lands settled in the name of his wife and daughter still continue to be in his enjoyment it should be included in his holding. In that view, he rejected the application for composition filed by the petitioner by an order dated May 26, 1974....
Tag this Judgment!State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Soundara Pandian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ114
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. This is a petition by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, dated 19th September, 1977 in Crl. M.P. No. 2382 of 1977 and for a direction to the learned Magistrate to consider the petition filed by the prosecution for custody of A-4 and A-5 on merits.2. The facts are as follows : The Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, who has filed the affidavit in support of this petition, arrested one Kannappan (A-1), one Somasundaram (A-2) and one Mariammal, wife of one Soundara Pandian (A-3) for having been found in unlawful possession of two battery cells belonging to the Railways, interrogated them and recorded the statements given by Kannappan and Somasundaram (A-1 and A-2, respectively), which statements implicated Soundara Pandian (A-4), and Thirupathy Nadar (A-5), who are the respondents herein. On the same day, the Inspector recovered...
Tag this Judgment!Fathima Bivi and ors. Vs. Bhavasa Maracair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ409
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. As against a common judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge of Chidambaram in two Original Suits tried by him collectively and numbered as O.S. No. 43 of 1970 and O.S. No. 48 of 1973 on his file, the above appeals arise.2. We shall here deal with substantive rights as between the sharers in the estate of one Abdul Azeez Maracair who died in the year, 1962. He married, according to the plaintiffs, only twice, but according to others, thrice. The plaintiffs are the sons and daughter of Abdul Azeez Maracair (hereinafter referred to as Azeez) through his second wife. The first defendant is his first wife. The sixth defendant whose marriage with Azeez is disputed is the third wife. The 7th and 8th defendants are the son and daughter respectively of Azeez through the third wife and defendants 9 to 11 are the sons of the second wife through her earlier marriage with another person. Defendants 2 to 5 are admittedly the predecessors of the plaintiffs' share i...
Tag this Judgment!Thvl. Kathiresan Yarn Stores, Salem Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad322; [1978]42STC121(Mad)
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959), Sections 12(2) and (3)--Degree of proof for imposition of penalty is of much higher order and different than that required for making a best judgment assessment.The revision petitioners were carrying on business in handloom cloth and art silk yarn. The Department came to know that the revision petitioners had imported art silk through the Port of Bombay. The assessing authority on estimate basis fixed the petitioners' taxable turn-over and the amount so fixed was assessed at 2 per cent under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959), and a penalty was also imposed on the petitioners under Section 12(3) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the imposition of penalty to the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal failed. The assessee preferred revision petitions to the High Court.The question that arose for consideration was whether the imposition of penalty under Section 12(3) of the Act was just...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »