Chennai Court June 1978 Judgments
The Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Executive Engineer, Coimb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1978
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ129
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal raises a point about the construction of an arbitration Clause in a building construction contract between the Union Government and a C.P.W.D. contractor. The contract was for construction of an Annexe to the Comptroller's Office building at Trivandrum at an estimated cost of about Rs. 5,47,000. The work was to be completed within 18 months. But, as the work progressed, the Government extended the time by two years. Apparently because of the time lag, the contractor incurred additional costs and expenses in the construction work. He accordingly applied to the Government for an upward revision of rates. During the execution of the contract, the contractor was also asked to do some substituted work. For this also he asked for extra payment. The Government, however, refused to pay him a pie more than what thecontract had originally specified. In consequence, the contractor referred the matter for arbitration.2. The arbitrator ...
Tag this Judgment!Moneys Transports, Tiruchirapalli Vs. the Tanjore Co-operative Marketi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad196
Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff in OS No. 65 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, dismissing the suit solely on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The suit was filed by the appellant against the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,140/-, with interest. The suit was originally instituted before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, on 3-10-1970. There is no dispute that the suit so instituted was within time. The respondent herein took up the plea that the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and that the competent court to entertain and dispose of the suit was the Sub Court, Nagapattinam. The question whether the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli, had jurisdiction or not, was tried as a preliminary issue, and the learned district Judge-Trainee functioning as the Fourth Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, by an order dated 23rd Sep., 1971, held that the Sub Co...
Tag this Judgment!Annamalai Vs. Abithakujambal and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad276; (1979)1MLJ464
1. This appeal has been filed by the third respondent in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 39 of 1971, in the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Arcot at Vellore On 24-5-1971 at about 3-50 p.m. one Jeevaratna Mudaliar was run over by a Willy's jeep van belonging to the Malaria Eradication and Maintenance department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The vehicle was driven by one Annamalai, who is the third respondent in the O.P. It was going on the Bangalore-Madras trunk road and at place near the Shenbakkam cross road, very close to the Vellore town, the accident occurred. The widow of the deceased Jeevaratna Mudaliar and her two daughters filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs. 15000. There are three respondents; the first is the State Government; the second is the driver and the third is the Officer who was travelling in the said vehicle at the time of the accident. Some time before the accident occurred, the second respondent had complained of chest pail and therefore, he handed ...
Tag this Judgment!The East Asiatic Company (India) Ltd. Vs. the Maritime Collector of Ce ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS114D
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 10.11.1976 and made herein and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the Order in C. No. VI/Y/15/19/63-E.C. and Order No. 766 of 1975 dated 12.4.71 and 12.11.75 on the file of respondent comprised in the return of Respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S.V. Subramaniam of M/s Subbaraya Iyer Padmanabhan and Ramamani and S.V. Subramaniam, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. T. Chengalvarayan, Central Government Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents the Court made the following order:The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for obtaining a writ of certiorarified mandamus for quashing an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise as ultimately confirmed by the Join...
Tag this Judgment!M.C. Duraiswami Vs. Sakthi Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1978
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ77
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the petitioner in the Company Petition No. 9 of 1976 against the order of Ramaprasada Rao, J., as he then was, dated 25th August, 1977 dismissing the said petition. That petition was purported to be one under Sections 397 and 39 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and it prayed for the following reliefs ;(a) an order suspending the powers of the Board of Directors of the Company and the appointment of an Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the company ;(b) to order an investigation into the affairs of the company as to the diversion of the funds of the company into the several organisations mentioned therein ;(c) to order an investigation into fraudulen inducement (?) of the funds belonging to the cane-grower-ryots who supplied sugarcane to the company into shares of the companies named therein ;(d) to order an investigation into any matter in the affairs of the company as the Court may deem fit ;(e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central) Vs. Kumari Kavitha Goenka (Minor) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1978
Reported in: [1979]119ITR974(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J. 1. The revenue sought under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957, a reference from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench ' A ', to refer certain questions of law said to arise out of the Tribunal's order dated October 31, 1972, in W.T.A. No. 194 (Mds) 1971-72 to this court for its opinion. As in the opinion of the Tribunal, certain questions of law did arise out of their order, they drew up a statement of case and referred the following four questions for our decision : ' 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 18(1)(a) as amended by clause 24(c) of the Finance Act, 1969, would not apply to the assessee's case for the assessment year 1968-69 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment proceedings would include penalty proceedings and that the law applicable to the penalty proc...
Tag this Judgment!Jameela Beevi and ors. Vs. Sheik Ismail
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-13-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad193; (1979)1MLJ82
Sathar Sayeed, J.1. The unsuccessful appellants in A.S. No. 755 of 1969 have preferred the above Letters Patent Appeal. One Sheik Ismail filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share in B, C and D schedule properties. The short case of the plaintiff was that he is the eldest son of Shamsuddin and the first defendant in O.S. No. 38 of 1960 is his sister. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of first defendant. Shamsuddin had another son by name Abdul Khader who died in the year 1964 and the 4th defendant is the wife of the said Abdul Khader. The plaintiff's mother Hussain Beevi wife of Shamsuddin dies in the year 1962. According to the plaintiff B schedule properties belong to his mother and he is entitled to a 3/10 share in those properties. His further case was that C and D schedule properties are family properties and he is entitled to a share in the said properties. His further case was that Shamsuddin has executed two documents, under Exs. B-7 and B-10 in the year 1966...
Tag this Judgment!Nellayappan Sastha and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-12-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR696(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The question that arises in this case is whether the sale proceeds of certain trees cut and sold from the petitioner's rubber plantation could be assessed under the Travancore Cochin Agrl. I.T, Act, 1950. For the assessment year 1964-65, the petitioner had cut and sold albezzia and malavembu trees of the value of Rs. 19,725, This was included in the assessable income of the petitioner as determined under the said Act.2. The petitioner questioned the said inclusion by filing an appeal, originally before the Asst. Commr. of Agrl. I.T., and later before the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. Before the Tribunal the petitioner's case was that the above trees, which had been cut and sold,were planted solely for the purpose of affording protection to the rubber plants and that, therefore, the sale proceeds of those trees cut and sold during the assessment year could not be treated as revenue receipt and brought to tax under the provisions of the said Act. Be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›