Chennai Court January 1979 Judgments
Kolapur Traders by Partner Gandhibai Vs. Subramania Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ43
ORDERG. Maheswaran, J.1. The revision petitioners are tenants in respect of premises No. 48, Bogipattarai Street, Vellore and they are carrying on business in jaggery. They were let into possession by the father of the respondent. The property fell to the share of respondent. The respondent who is an Advocate practising at Vellore requires the premises for the purpose of locating his chambers. The revision petitioners are keeping the premises locked and also require a pagadi of Rs. 5000 and therefore the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the revision petitioners before the Rent Controller, Vellore.2. The application was resisted by the revision petitioners, who inter alia contended that the building is not suited for running the office of an Advocate and that the notice terminating the tenancy is not valid. The Rent Controller ordered eviction as, in his view, the requirement of the landlord of the premises was for the bona fide purpose of setting up his practice. In appeal, ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ramasubbu Pillai and ors. Vs. the Government of India, by the Under ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ80
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. As the point involved in all the above writ petitions is the same, they are dealt with together. The facts involved in all the matter are also substantially the same and as such it is sufficient to deal with the facts in the first case, i.e., W.P. No. 197 of 1978.2. The first respondent herein had proposed a scheme for rehabilitation of those persons who participated in the National Freedom Struggle and sacrificed the prospects of all livelihood and who were actually without any means of substance. The said Scheme formulated by the Government of India is known as the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme of 1972. The said Scheme laid down the class of such freedom fighters who will be covered by the Scheme and also prescribed certain conditions and procedure for the applications to be made and for the grant of pension thereunder. For a person to become eligible for the grant of pension under the said Scheme, he should have suffered imprisonment of not less than six m...
Tag this Judgment!Meenakshi Ammal Vs. J. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ1200
ORDERMaheswaran, J.1. This revision is against the judgment of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli made in M. C. No. 827 of 1976. The wife filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for increase in the maintenance amount granted to her in M. C. No. 438 of 19:73). The learned Magistrate in dealing with that application observed that generally the Court has no power to alter the order passed by it for maintenance, but under Section 127 an application can be maintained, and that the words 'changed circumstances' appearing in Section 127 will only point to the change of circumstances of the wife and not to the change of circumstance of the husband, the respondent in the petition. This view of the Magistrate is wrong. The plain import of Sub-section (1) of Section 127 is that a provision is made therein for an increase or decrease of the allowance consequent on a change in the circumstance of either party at the time of application for alter...
Tag this Judgment!Renown Biscuit Co., Bombay Vs. Kamalanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad28
ORDER1. The defendant in 0. S. No. 1317 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Coimbatore, is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,500 on the basis of the appointment of the plaintiff-respondent as the sole selling distributor for the biscuits manufactured by the petitioner in the Districts of Coimbatore and Nilgiris on 5-7-1961, and on account of the transactions that took place between the parties, the plaintiff-respondent claiming to be entitled to the amount in question. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Munsif, Coinibatore., The petitioner's case was that Cl. 13 of the agreement entered into between the parties contemplated the courts situate in the City of Bombay alone having jurisdiction to entertain any. dispute between the parties. The existence of such a Clause in the agreement is not disputed. Equally, as part of the cause of action aro...
Tag this Judgment!Nagpal Petro-chem. Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1979
Reported in: 1979CENCUS97D; 1979(4)ELT117(Mad)
Natarajan, J.1. The petitioner is a public limited company with its registered office situate in Bombay. Under a technical collaboration agreement with Messrs Witco Chemicals Corporation, U.S.A., the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of petro-chemical products at its factory at Manali, Madras. The products of surphonates manufactured by the petitioner are excisable goods and they fall under Tariff Item No. 15-AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1 of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the petitioner, there is not much demand for sulphonates at Madras, though the petitioner has a wholesale price at factory gate and there are instances of sales at wholesale rates at the factory gates at Manali. On the other hand, the petitioner's products are in great demand at Bombay where about 80 per cent of the total production of the products are sold. Messrs Sikri and Grover are the main buyers for sale of the products of the petitioner, at Bombay...
Tag this Judgment!Renown Biscuit Company, a Partnership Firm, Biscuit Manufacturers Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ377
ORDERM. M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O. S. No. 1317 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,500 on the basis of the appointment of the plaintiff-respondent as the sole selling distributor in the biscuits manufactured by the petitioner in the Districts of Coimbatore and Nilgiris on 5th July, 1961, and on account of the transactions that took place between the parties, the plaintiff-respondent qaiming to be entitled to the amount in question. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court of the District Munsif, Coimbatore. The petitioner's case was that Clause 13 of the agreement entered into between the parties contemplated the Courts situate in the City of Bombay alone having jurisdiction to entertain any dispute between the parties. The existence of such a Clause in the agreement is not disputed. Equally, as part of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswamy Gounder Vs. Kandasamy Gounder S/O. Subbiah Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ238
V. Sethuraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 841 of 1973 in the Court of the District Munsif of Pollachi. The suit is for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed to be a cultivating tenant covered by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955. This suit came to be filed under the following circumstances. There was one Nanjappa Goundar, who had a daughter by name Chinnammal and a grand-daughter by name Kandammal. Nanjappa executed a will on 15th May, 1924, by which he gave a life-interest in the suit property in favour of his daughter Chinnammal and the absolute remainder in favour of his grand-daughter. He died in the year 1941. On 27th October, 1948, Chinnammal and Kandammal granted a lease in favour of the plaintiff. Kandammal died in the year 1932, even before the absolute estate in her favour could take effect. After the death of Kandammal, Chinnammal, the life esta...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. R.M. C.T.M. Tiruppani Trust and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1979
Reported in: [1984]150ITR642(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. Though the assessees in these two cases are different,the questions referred for the opinion of this court are identical. Therefore, it is enough to consider the questions referred in T.C. No. 211 of 1975 only. 2. It may be mentioned here that in T.C. No. 211 of 1975, the assessment years relevant are 1963-64 and 1964-65 and in T.C. No. 262 of 1975, the assessment years are 1963-64 and 1965-66.3. The questions in T.C. No. 211 of 1975 are as follows :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on a proper construction of Section 11(2) of the Act, the conditions contemplated therein are cumulative or alternative ? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that paragraphs 2 and 4 in Form No. 10 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, prescribing the time-limit were beyond the powers ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri Venkateswara Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR207(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the sum of Rs. 26,032 as an admissible deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) or under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a public limited company carrying on banking operations. On 29th December, 1967, it entered into an agreement to transfer a substantial part of its business to the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. At the time of the transfer, the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 26,032 as ' gratuity' to its employees and claimed the same as deduction in the computation of its income. The ITO disallowed the claim for deduction on the ground that the amount paid to the employees, though termed as ' gratuity ', is in effect ' retrenchment compensation ' paid to the employees of the assessee and since the assessee had ceased its business activities e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Concord Industries Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Mad)312; [1979]119ITR458(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to us:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the pase, it has been rightly held by the Appellate Tribunal that the provisions of Section 79 would not apply to unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate?'2. For the assessment year 1969-70, there was an assessment on 23rd March, 1970, fixing the total income at Rs. 90,790. After adjusting the losses brought forward from the preceding three years, the ITO determined the total income at nil. He recorded also in his order that the following amounts be carried forward :Losses to be carried forward :Asstt. yearBusiness lossUnabsorbed depreciationRs.Rs.1964-65...4,2271965-66...8,7631966-67...45,5061967-6849,39577,1811968-69...2,2903. The Addl. CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 of the Act as he found that the ITO had allowed set-off of the earlier years' losses against the profits of the year under consideration, with...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »