Chennai Court October 1979 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S. Ganapathi Subramaniam and Three ors. Vs. S. Ganapathy Sunaram Pilla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ464
G. Ramanujam, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 and 11 In O.S. No. 213 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam are the appellants. The said suit was filed by the first respondent herein for a declaration that the settlement deed, dated 30th July, 1964 executed by his grandfather Lakshmana Pillai alias Shanmugam Pillai was void and inoperative so far as the suit lands are concerned and for an injunction against defendants 1 to 3 and their father the fourth defendant, and 10th and 11th defendants from interfering with his alleged possession of the same. The plaintiff's case was that the suit properties belonged to his grand-father Lakshmana Pillai alias Shanmugam Pillai, that the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 9 are the children of Sivakami Ammal, the daughter of Lakshmana Pillai, that on 30th July, 1964 the said Lakshmana Pillai had executed a registered deed endowing the suit properties for certain services to be rendered in Sri. Shanmugasundereswarar Siddhi Vinayagar temple, that...
Parthasarathy and anr. Vs. Kuppammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad246; (1980)2MLJ83
1. These matters, at the first instance, came before the learned Chief justice and at that stage a decision of Mohan J. in Varadappa Reddiar v. Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,[1977) 2 Mad LJ (SN) 17, was relied on by the respondent herein. Since the learned chief justice was not inclined to agree with the view of Mohan, J. the matter has been referred to a Division Bench and following is the order of reference:"The Honorable the Chief Justice: - revision petitions raise rather an interesting question. The suits for eviction were filed by the respondent on the ground that the petitioners were unauthorised occupants of vacant land. The suits were filed on 7-9-1971. In those suits, the trial went on and the defence of the petitioners was that they have prescribed title over the land by adverse possession and set up independent title in themselves over the same. The defence of the petitioners was not conceded to by the trial court, the appellate court and also this court in second appeal....
K. Lakshmanaswami Chettiar and Sons Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC327(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 29th November, 1975. For the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee was assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 9,51,739.76 by an order dated 12th January, 1968. While checking the accounts for 1970-71, it was found that the assessee had shown lesser purchases and sales by undertotalling the purchases and sales in the ledger. On 17th March, 1972, the assessing authority issued a notice to the dealers in form XII to produce their accounts for 1966-67 on 21st March, 1972. The assessee did not produce the accounts. The assessing authority again issued a notice on 25th March, 1972, to produce the accounts. Again the assessee did not comply. In a further notice on 25th March, 1972, the assessing authority wrote again saying that there was every reason to suspect that the turnover reported in form A-2 for 1966-67 did not represent the correct t...
S. Balachandran Vs. A. Champalal Jain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ116
V. Ratnam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner and he filed an application for eviction against the respondent herein on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent for the period from 1st January, 1974 to 31st May,1974. The respondent contended that the default was not wilful. The Rent Controller held that the respondent-tenant was guilty of wilful default in payment of rent and ordered eviction. The appellate authority also confirmed that order. However, on further revision to the learned District Judge, Pondicherry, the learned District Judge was inclined to take the view that since the petitioner had an advance of Rs. 900 with him, Section 7(2) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959 could be invoked which would amount to an automatic adjustment of that advance as against the unpaid rent. In this view, the orders of the Court below were set aside and the application for eviction was dismissed.2. In this civil revision petition, the learned Counsel fo...
Kwality Monuments Represented by Its Partner Smt. Hagbul Jan Vs. the T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ461
ORDERA. Varadarajan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 2,26 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records relating to R.O.C. No. 25789 of 1977 B-2 on the file of the second respondent, (the Collector of Dharmapuri) and quashing the order dated 23rd February, 1977 passed therein.2. The petitioner partnership had taken 2-50 acres of land in Palacode Taluk on lease from the Government for purposes of quarrying on a rent of Rs. 2,600 per annum for a period of ten years from 30th October, 1972 to 29th October, 1982. As per the terms of the lease, the petitioner paid the entire amount. A lease deed dated 30th October, 1972 was entered into providing inter alia for immediate cancellation of the lease in case the petitioner used the land for any purpose other than quarrying and also for termination of the lease by the issue of six months' notice by either of the parties thereto. The second re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Mad)248; [1981]130ITR385(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following three questions have been referred to this court: ' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in declining to allow the entire expenses incurred by the assessee on the three rented buildings at (a) 3/4, Godown Street, Madras; (b) 181, Mount Road, Madras, and (c) 86, Wallajah Road, Madras, as a revenue expenditure (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Section 40(c)(ii), the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire claim of depreciation on the flat, furniture and air-conditioning machinery in Carmichael House should be allowed (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,350 paid by the assessee-company to the Registrar of Companies as fees for increasing the capital of the ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. T. Saraswathi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: [1980]125ITR186(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These are references under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act, 1957. The following questions have been referred :'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the bonus shares in the hands of the minor daughter of the assessee cannot be considered as assets transferred by the assessee either directly or indirectly under Section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the bonus shares issued to the minor daughter of the assessee should be excluded in computing the net wealth of the assessee ' 2. The assessee gifted to her minor daughter 10,000 shares in M/s. Rajendra Mills Ltd. on September 22, 1960. During the course of the year ending March 31, 1969, M/s. Rajendra Mills Ltd. issued bonus shares as a result of which the minor daughter came to own another 10,000 shares. The value of the entire ...
M. Veluchamy Gounder and anr. Vs. K. Mani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ512
S. Mohan, J.1. The revision arises under the following circumstances:2. The respondent/decree holder filed E.A. No. 258 of 1978 in E.P.No. 152 of 1978 in OS. No. 172 of 1977 under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to direct the revision petitioners to produce the attached movables, which are in their custody, failing which necessary orders may be passed permitting the decree holder to proceed against the revision petitioners/sureties.3. The said suit was originally dismissed for default on 6th December, 1977 Later, the order of dismissal was set aside and the suit was restored to file and the suit was decreed ex parte on 28th March, 1978. The movable properties of the judgment-debtor were attached before judgment on 30th of September, 1977, as evidenced by Exhibits A-1 to A-3 and A-7, since the defendant did not furnish security.4. The 1st petitioner herein took possession of the movables attached before judgment and petitioners 1 and 2 executed surety bonds as evidenced by E...
C. Shanmughavel Vs. the Post Master, West Post Office Represented by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ321
V. Ratnam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which arises out of an application filed by him under Section 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1973. It is not in dispute that the building in question belongs to the petitioner and the West Post Office in Dindigul is situated in this building. This building was let out to the respondent for the purpose of keeping and running a post office therein. The petitioner stated that when he went to collect rent on 2nd August, 1974, he found that the building had been kept in a very bad condition with the flooring considerably damaged and the walls full of holes with bricks visible in several places. It has also further stated that cracks had developed in the ceiling and that the beam had become bent and the walls in most places had also become damaged. The petitioner therefore claimed that unless immediate, proper and effective rep...
M.V. Krishnamoorthy and anr. Vs. Smt. Anandalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1979
Reported in: (1980)IIMLJ321
Sathiadev, J. 1. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants. The first respondent herein filed the suit claiming that she was entitled to the provident fund amount of Rs. 9,151 due from the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein, who were defendants Nos. 3 and 4 in the trial court, on the ground that she was the heir and dependent of deceased K. Subramantan, who was working as an assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation at Coimbatore. Subramanian diedon 28th January, 1970, leaving behind his wife, the plaintiff, without any children. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are his father and mother. Plaintiff claimed that though 3rd defendant admitted her claim in some letters and agreed to pay the provident fund amount to her, later on refused to pay stating that the first-defendant had been nominated by her late husband. In the alternative, she claimed that she will be entitled to share the amount along with the second-defendant. Hence the present suit.3. The first-defendant, father of late Subramanian ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »