Chennai Court November 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.
Sampoornammal Vs. Rajendran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad239; (1980)2MLJ35
1. The first defendant is the appellant and the appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in the order of their array in the suit.2. The plaintiff is the son of the second defendant while the first defendant is the daughter of one Ellammal, a deceased sister of the second defendant Ellammal lost her husband at an young age and had come over to the second defendant's house with her daughter the first defendant who was then a minor. Taking into consideration the widowhood of his sister and her obligation to bring up her minor daughter, the second defendant settled 60 cents of land on her on 29-3-1954, under a registered settlement deed, a registration copy of which has been marked as Ex. A. 4. About two years thereafter, Ellammal died and the first defendant was brought up by the second defendant and given in marriage to one Venkatachala Naidu. The said extent of 60 cents forms part of S. No. 41/1...
Maya Jothi Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ336
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 122 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif of Ami who suceeded before the trial Court, but failed before the lower appellate Court is the appellant herein. She filed the suit against her mother for a declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same or in the alternative for an injunction restraining the defendant from in any way dealing with the property prejudicially to her interest during her life time. The circumstances under which the plaintiff filed the suit may briefly be stated.2. The plaintiff's father one Abboy Naidu married the plaintiff's mother, the defendant as his third wife and with a view to induce her to marry him, he executed a settlement deed Exhibit A-1 in respect of certain properties which he valued at Rs. 300. The plaintiff was born of that marriage. Subsequently the defendant began to live separately from the husband in view of alleged ill-treatment by the husband, Abboy Nai...
Silver Chem Industries Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC315(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) dated 25th November, 1975. The assessee claimed exemption in relation to a turnover of Rs. 19,872.11 relating to sales of 'damping hose cloth' on the ground that it is textiles. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed this claim and the Board of Revenue examined the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on suo motu revision. It was considered by the Board that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was wrong and required modification. The assessee was heard and the Board held:The product, damping hose cloth, as it comes out of the factory, is in the shape of a hose, of different lengths. It is used for damping rollers in offset printing machines. It is a finished product. It is not called as textile in ordinary or popular sense and is not commonly understood as textile. Further, the dealers themselves have collected tax on a turnover of Rs. 17,432.72 treating it...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. B.R. Kuppuswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC308(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This revision petition has been filed to revise the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 6th August, 1975. The assessee is a firm dealing in leco, firewood and charcoal. During the year 1973-74, the assessee reported total and taxable sales of Rs. 19,88,896.20 and Rs. 16,50,957.21 respectively. There was a dispute as to the classification of leco. According to the assessee, leco being carbonised lignite briquette was coal which is declared as goods of special importance in inter-State trade and commerce under Section 14(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, even after its amendment by Act 61 of 1972 with effect from 1st April, 1973. If leco is taken as declared goods then the assessee's sales would be second sales which are not taxable. The assessing authority declined to grant this exemption, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the assessment. The Tribunal, after going elaborately into the question of manufacture of lignite briquettes and al...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mundran Kala Mandir
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1979
Reported in: [1980]46STC365(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This revision arises out of the judgment of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28th June, 1975. The assessee returned a total turnover of Rs. 96,759.21 and a net assessable turnover of Rs. 18,005.25 for the assessment year 1972-73. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer determined the assessable turnover at Rs. 1,98,104.92 and before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee claimed relief to the extent of Rs. 1,69,012 consisting of the following two items: (1) Sale of road maps of Greater Bombay, Rs. 1,08,015.56, (2) Claim for deduction as labour charges, Rs. 60,996.96. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim not only with reference to these two items of return but also another item of Rs. 11,650 which had not been agitated before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The present revision is against the correctness of the order of the Tribunal in relation to the items mentioned above and the sum of R...
M. Ramalingam Vs. Kothandaraman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ283
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The revision is by the landlord who sought to evict the respondent-tenant, on the following allegations : The petitioner resides in one portion of the suit house consisting of three rooms and koodam in the front block o the ground floor. His family consists of himself, his wife, two married sons with their wives and two grand-children by the second son. For such a very large family and its growing needs the present accommodation is very inadequate and the family needs additional accommodation. The rear portion of the ground floor is unsuited for the needs of my client and his family. He desires to occupy the portion tenanted by the respondent which consists of two rooms and two verandahs in the rear block of the upstairs portion as well as the rest of the upstairs portion in the occupation of the other tenant, Purashothaman, which consists of two rooms and two varandahs in the front block of the upstairs portion. The petitioner submits that the upstairs portion alon...
N. Arjuna Chetty Vs. S. Mallappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ248
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff, in O.S. No. 4499 of 1976, on the file of the learned VII Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. He instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,142 together with further interest on Rs. 3,000 at 24 per cent per annum from 23rd August, 1976, to the date of decree and thereafter at 6 per cent per annum and for costs. The suit was laid on the basis of a promissory note dated 2nd July, 1973 executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner herein under Order 37, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents herein filed l.A. No. 21760 of 1976 for grant of unconditional leave to defend the suit and the application was dismissed, as having been filed beyond the stipulated time It must also be mentioned that the dismissal of IA. No. 21760 of 1976 has become final However, the respondents filed IA. No. 21761 of 1976 praying for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit had been instit...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Industrial Investment Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1979
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Mad)175; [1980]124ITR454(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in permitting the assessee to raise the contention that the entire amount of Rs. 3,00,000 being the discount relating to the issue of debentures for Rs. 1.5 crores during the relevant previous year was to be allowed as a permissible deduction ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 3,00,000 during the relevant previous year by way of discount paid to the persons who had subscribed to the debentures issued by it for Rs. 1.5 crores during the relevant previous year and the same was allowable as a revenue expenditure ' 2. The assessee is a public limited company, sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Government, with the main object of advancing long-term loans to industr...
Mohamed Habibullah Vs. Rahimath Beevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ436
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The civil revision petition arises out of I.A. No. 354 of 1976 in O.S. No. 24 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramakudi, under the following circumstances:2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit, which was one for partition of his share in the suit properties. He also filed a petition for recovery of his share in the rents and profits derived from the properties. While the petition was disposed of, he was given liberty to file a subsequent petition for the same. The final decree was passed on 30th April, 1973, which came to be confirmed in the appeal and thereafter, he obtained delivery of possession in E.P. No. 85 of 1975 on 30th December, 1975. There were 11 shops in the suit properties and it appears that in respect of ten of them, a sum of Rs. 5 per mensem was collected as rent for each shop till 31st December, 1967 and thereafter, at the rate of Rs. 7 and for the remaining one, a rent of Rs. 10 per month was being collected. Th...
Mangalam Ammal and ors. Vs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co., Ltd., by Its Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ246
ORDERS. Suryamurthy, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge of Pondicherry, rejecting the contention of the defendants, who are the petitioners before me, that the suit is not maintainable in law, because the second plaintiff, who has taken over the liabilities and assets of the first plaintiff by reason of an order dated 13th April, 1978 issued by the Government of India and published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (1) of Section 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, has not been authorised to continue pending suits. By the notification aforesaid the Government of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 18-A of the Act has authorised the National Textile Corporation Limited (here-in after referred to as the Authorised Person) to take over the management of the whole of the industrial undertaking referre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›