Chennai Court April 1978 Judgments
S. Abdul Rahman Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR570(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The following question has been referred under Section 27 of the W.T. Act:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Wealth-tax Officer was justified in adopting, for the assessment year 1967-68, the equivalent in Indian rupees at the official exchange rate for the value of the wealth in Ceylon rupees, the quantum of which wealth in Ceylon rupees was not in dispute.'2. The assessee submitted his wealth-tax return in respect of the assessment year 1967-68, corresponding to the year ending June 30, 1966. He was assessed in the status of 'individual' who is a citizen of India. He was resident and ordinarily resident. The valuation date was June 30, 1966. The assessee had certain wealth in Ceylon comprising, of a co-ownership share in immovable properties as also some bank deposits and monies due from his brother. He had shown in the return his wealth in Ceylon at a figure of Rs. 70,604 in Ceylon currency. The WTO...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Periyasamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad370
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This revision arises out of execution proceedings. The petitioner herein is the decree-holder. The respondent herein is the judgment-debtor. Thedecree in question is dated 29-4-1961. Earlier, E. P. 1050 of 1972 was filed for sale of the properties and on 31-3-1973, the Dist. Munsif, Dindigul, before whom the above proceedings were instituted passed orders and from the original order endorsed on the execution petition, though there is difficulty in deciphering it, I find that the order reads-'No bidders at the sale on 28-3-1973. No steps. E. P. dismissed. The attachment to continue.'Both the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent concede that the above is the correct version of the order passed by the Court below on 31-3-1973. On 27-7-1973 the petitioner herein filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 66 C.P.C. to bring the properties for sale. His application was contested by the judgment-debtor (respondent herein) on the ground that the present petition is ba...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendran (Minor) and ors. Vs. Rajambal Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad10
ORDER1. The petitioner herein filed O. P. 20 of 1973 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai for leave to institute the concerned suit in forma pauperis. That application was resisted by the respondents in this revision mainly on the ground that the proposed suit is barred by the principles of respondent judicata in view of the judgment and decree in O. S. 309 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. The court below considered this application O. P. 20 of 1973 and found that the petitioners are paupers; but dismissed the application on a consideration of the second contention raised by the respondents, viz, that the proposed suit is barred by the principles of res judicata. The present revision is directed against the orders of the court below.2. Mr. S.K. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the question that has to be gone into only on a consideration in extenso of the merits and demerits of the contentions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!N.V. Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad69
1. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukottai, dated 21-6-1969, setting aside a sale held under the Revenue Recovery Act on 12-3-1964 in which the petitioner was the highest bidder. One Chockanathan and Alagar Servai owned the properties which have been sold in revenue auction. The said properties were the subject-matter of a mortgage in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 800, the mortgage having been executed on 15-12-1952. The suit property was, however, brought to sale under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of revenue arrears. In the sale held on 12-3-1964, the petitioner was the highest bidder for Rs. 525 subject to the mortgage in his favour. Subsequent to the sale, neither the owners filed any petition for setting aside the sale either under S. 37-A or under S. 38 of the Act within 30 days.2. Subsequently, when the proposals for confirmation of sale were pending befo...
Tag this Judgment!A. C. Paul Vs. Tax Recovery Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Mad)337
P. Govindan Nair, C.J. - This is a petition under Article 133(1) of the Constitution. It is admitted that, in order that a certificate may issue, both the conditions, (a) and (b) of Article 133(1), will have be satisfied. Those conditions are :-(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.The question that we considered in W.P. No. 359 of 1975 was the interpretation of Sec. 220(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That section, with the Explanation, is in the following terms :(7) where an assessee has been assessed in respect of income arising outside India in a country the laws of which prohibit or restrict the remittance of money to India, the Income-tax Officer shall not treat the assessee as in default in respect of that part of the tax which is due in respect of that amount of his income which, by reason of such prohibition or restriction, cannot be...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad133
1. This writ petition is for Mandamus seeking directions to restrain the first respondent (State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, Fort St. George, Madras) from permitting the second respondent, Thiru M. G. Ramachandran, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from acting in films or engaging himself in any profession, art, calling or employment while he continues to be the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.2. The petitioner is a citizen of India and a voter. The second respondent was appointed Chief Minister by the Governor of Tamil Nadu in June 1977. For some weeks now the second respondent has been stating that he was going to engage himself in film acting. Various statements in different forms have been appearing in the newspapers. A news appearing in the daily 'Sunday Standard' a copy of which is annexed to the affidavit to indicate that he has definitely intended to engage in film acting while continuing to be the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner in his ...
Tag this Judgment!N.A. Perianna Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Soora Radhakrishna Chetti a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ165
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 77 of 1970 in the Court of the District Judge of Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri are the appellants. They field a suit on a mortgage deed executed on 19th April, 1949 by one Govinda Chettiar whose sons are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The mortgage carried interest at the rate of 10 annas per cent per month. The mortgagors sold the hypotheca to the fourth defendant, who purchased the same on behalf of a joint family consisting of himself, his brother the fifth defendant and his father, the third defendant.2. The original mortgagee was N.A. Subramania Chettiar. He died in or about 1962 as an undivided member of a joint family consisting of himself, his brother the first plaintiff and his children, plaintiffs 2 to 6. Originally the first plaintiff alone filed the suit. But later on, an objection being taken by defendants 3 to 5, who alone contested the suit, plaintiffs 2 to 6 were joined as plaintiffs.3. Prior to the filing of the suit a sum of ...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Rajagopalan Vs. Mohanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ460
Ramanujam, J.1. On 15th February, 1972 at about 2-30 P.M. at Bodyguard Road, near Stanley Viaduct, Madras, one Munuswamo was travelling in the tempo, MSL 7442 from Parrys towards, Mount-Road. At that time, a bus belonging to the Pallavan Transport Corporation, collided with the said tempo. As a result of this accident, the said Munuswamy died. The brothers of the deceased filed O.P. No 615 of 1972 claiming compensation of Rs. 50,000 on the ground that the accident had occurred as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the two vehicles by the drivers under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. That claim was resisted by the Pallavan Transport Corporation contending that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the Pallavan Transport Corporation bus driver but because of the negligence of the deceased and the driver of the tempo MSL 7442. It also contended that the claim was excessive. The owner of the tempo contended that the claimants are not the heirs of...
Tag this Judgment!K. Krishnaswami Pillai Vs. the Kumbakonam City Union Bank Ltd. and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ180
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of an order passed by the lower Court dismissing the application to set aside a sale in execution, held on 24th October, 1973, filed by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 90, read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The appellant herein is the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 387 of 1971 on the file of the lower Court. In the said suit a mortgage decree was passed for a sum of Rs. 43 000 and odd. In execution of the said mortgage decree the mortgaged properties were brought to sale in E.P. No. 338 of the 1972. The appellant-judgment-debtor was served with notice of the said execution petition, but he remained ex parte. Since the appellant remained ex parte the sale proclamation was settled in his absence. While settling the sale proclamation, the upset price was fixed at Rs. 1,30 000 in the first instance and the sale was held on 1st August, 1973 Since there were no bidders, on an application made by the decree-hold...
Tag this Judgment!Salem Chemical Industries, a Registered Firm Vs. Bird and Co. (P) Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad16
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 310 of 1970 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem, is the appellant before us. It is a partnership firm carrying on business at Salem. The defendant is a private limited company having its office at Calcutta.2. One Messrs India Patent Stone Co., Ltd., entered into an agreement on 16-5-1964 with the plaintiff for the supply, erection and commissioning of a complete plant for the manufacture of 10 tons of solid alum per day at Salem. The contract was later concluded in or about August 1965. Messrs India Patent Stone Co., Ltd., was subsequently taken over by the defendant-company. According to the plaintiff, the defendant failed to perform its part of the contract within a reasonable time in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract both in respect of the supply of materials and in the matter of erection and commissioning of the plant and, therefore, the defendant had committed a breach of the contract rendering itself liable for damages. Since t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »