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.
P.M. Shams Unnissa Begum Vs. C.K. Nanjiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ9
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. The landlady is the petitioner herein and she filed a petition before Rent Controller, Vellore. under Section 4 of the Act XVIII of 1960 for fixation of fair rent. The premises bearing door No. 26, of Sanjeevi Pillai Street of Vellore town, has been rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 to the respondent. The total plinth area is claimed to be 1879 sq. feet and the building was constructed about 20 years back at a cost of Rs. 20,000 and the value of the site is Rs. 50 per sq. foot. Therefore she had claimed the fixation of fair rent at Rs. 400 per month.2. The tenant claimed that the rent was raised only in 1973, and therefore no fair rent can be fixed. The building is 50 years old and the cost of site will be only Rs. 4 per sq. foot and that there is no need for fixation of any fair rent.3. Before the Rent Controller, both the authorities agreed that the schedule building is a class HI building and that it is about 40 years old. A Commissioner was appointed 1...
Ananthakrishnan and Company Vs. the Board of Trustees of the Port of M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ251
V. Ratnam, J.1. The unsuccessful second defendant in the Courts below is the appellant in this Second Appeal which arises out of a suit instituted by the first respondent herein for the recovery of demurrage charges to the tune of Rs. 1,765.46 as against the appellant and Anr. in respect of a consignment unloaded on 21st December, 1966, from S.S.Indian Traders of which the appellant was the steamer agent. The Port Trust which has been statutorily interposed to do various services in respect of goods and cargo passing through the Madras Port claimed charges for such services for the period from 9th April, 1967 to 25th October, 1967. The consignee was impleaded as the first defendant and the appellant, the steamer agent, was impleaded as the second defendant. The consignment in question was 27 bags of muriate of potash. The first respondent claimed that on landing of the consignment in the Port. It had rendered the usual services and the consignment had been detailed as excess landed in ...
Palaniammal Vs. Pallipalayam Jamia Masjid Muthavalli S.M. Dawood, Pall ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1979
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ147
T. Sathiadev, J.1. Judgment-debtor who was the first respondent in the Court below is the petitioner herein, first respondent herein as the decree-holder filed R.E.P. No. 279 of 1978 in O.S. No 543 of 1964 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Sankari at Salem, under Order 21, Rule 35, Civil Procedure Code, for delivery of the petition-mentioned immovable property to the petitioner stating that he had obtained a decree on 4th April, 1968 for possession of immovable property but he was not able to take possession all along in view of the pendency of proceedings in Appellate Courts. The first respondent, who is the petitioner herein, and the second respondent contended that whatever be the decree that had been obtained 10 years back, since the decree-holder has no title to the suit property, he cannot recover possession of the property, that the defendants had been under the wrong impression of the ownership of the decree-holder and now only they realise that they have paid re...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jankut Mustafa Bilgen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: [1986]157ITR728(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. At the instance or the Commissioner of Income-tax, the following two questions have been referred to this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to arrive at the capital gains and assess under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, the sum Rs. 2,26,417 and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 2,26,417 is not taxable to capital gains in view of Section 47(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as gift-tax has been levied on the assessee under Section 4(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, on the very same transfer?' 3. The assessee, who is an individual, admitted capital gains of Rs. 47,500 on the sale of property in Mount Road for the assessment year 1970-7.1, for which the previous year ended on March 31, ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Late K.A. Sheik Dawood (by Lr.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: [1983]139ITR261(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 26(1) of the G.T. Act, the following question has been referred to :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that either as an onerous gift or as an obligation arising out of contract for discharging the loan of Rs. 1,75,000, the market value of the property gifted should be deducted by Rs. 1,75,000 '2. By a gift deed dated March 25, 1971, the assessee gifted to his son, daughters, grandchildren, sons-in-law and daughters-in-law, totalling in all 23 persons, 14.80 acres. Seven of these persons, who were all majors, were required to discharge debts contracted on promissory notes amounting to Rs. 1,75,000. The assessee, in his gift-tax return claimed that this sum of Rs. 1,75,000 should, be deducted from the value of the lands gifted and that the balance alone should be assessed to gift-tax. The GTO was of the view that this sum did not constitute a charge on the property gifted and th...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. B. Viswanathiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: [1981]131ITR706(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has applied under Section 27(3) of the W.T. Act, 1957, for a reference of the following question ;' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Section 18(1)(a), as they stood before the amendment, should be the basis for the computation of penalty under Section 18(1)(a) notwithstanding the fact that the default continued even after April 1, 1969 '2. The question is common for four years, viz., 1964-65 to 1967-68. For these years, the assessee did not file the returns within the prescribed time. The WTO issued notices under Section 17(1)(a) of the W.T. Act and in response the assessee filed the returns as follows :Assessment yearDate of return1964-6515-1-19701965-6616-2-19701966-67 & 1967-6818-2-19703. While completing the assessment, the WTO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act. The explanation of the assessee was ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. S.M. KamaluddIn Fakri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: [1980]124ITR98(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. Under section 64(2) of the E.D. Act, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, the following question has been referred:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased was obliged to maintain all his male descendants from out of the income of the property that remained after defraying the expenses for the maintenance of the mosque and consequently it could not be said that the interest of the deceased extended to the whole income of the property?'2. The estate duty assessment came to be made on the death of one Abdul Khader Fakhri on 4th October, 1964. He left behind him his wife, 3 sons and 4 daughters. They did not file any account under the E.D. Act as, according to them, the property in respect of which the estate duty proceedings were relevant, was a wakf property, and the deceased was only a mutawalli and hence no property could be said to have passed on his death either under Sectio...
Pattayi Padayachi (Died) and ors. Vs. Subbaraya Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ296
V. Ratnam, J.1. An interesting question of law relating to limitation arises in this second appeal at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant in the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 and their father Arumugham constituted members of a joint family and the plaint 'A' Schedule properties belonged to that family. In 1949, Arumugha died leaving behind him his sons, respondents 1 and 2 and his widow, the third respondent. According to the case of respondents 1 and 2, after the death of Arumugha, their mother, the third respondent, did not look after the family and did not attend to the family affairs, but launched programme of alienating the family properties. Defendants 2 to 9, according to the plaintiffs, were such alienees and those alienations were not binding on the sons, respondents 1 and 2 herein, who were minors. Respondents 1 and 2 characterised these alienations as void ones and prayed for partition and separate possession after setting aside the alienat...
A.K. Loganathan Vs. R. Beema Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ281
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff, who had lost in the Courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal, which arises out of a suit instituted by him for a declaration that the common order in C.P. Nos. 393 of 1967, 98 of 1968 and 100 of 1968 on the file of the Labour Court, Coimbatore is a nullity and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the same. According to the plaintiff, he is a partner in 'Reliable Transports' which is a firm, acting as managing agents for Messrs. Safe Service Limited, a public limited company having its registered office at Guagai, Salem and operating stage carriage transport service. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, worked as an accountant on a fixed remuneration under M/s. Safe Service Limited for a period of less than six months. While so, he filed an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the plaintiff describing him as the managing partner of M/s. Safe Service Limited in C.P. N...
R. Sivagnanam Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ441
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner had been employed as a clerk in the second respondent company in their Salem branch office on a salary of Rs. 400 per month. For the year ending 31st December, 1974, the second respondent paid bonus to all the employees, excepting the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have requested the management to pay his bonus amount but his request had been turned down. The petitioner has thereafter filed a petition under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming a sum of 'Rs. 1,440 as bonus.2. The said claim was opposed by the second respondent management. The management's contention was that the petitioner was employed as a branch Manager in their Salem branch and as such he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further it was contended that the Labour Court at Coimbatore had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's claim, as on the date of the filing of the petition the petitioner has b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›