Chennai Court March 1979 Judgments
D. Rajapathi Vs. the University of Madurai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad219
1. The facts, giving rise to this civil miscellaneous appeal may be briefly stated: The University of Madurai had obtained the State Governments permission to raise buildings for staff quarters at Madurai. The actual work of construction of the buildings and their supervision were with the Directorate of Technical Education, Technical Division Madras, which is a department of the state Government. Rajapathi, the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal is an Assistant Engineer, Public works Department, Madras. It was part of his duty to supervise the construction of the staff quarters in the Madurai University, for he was attached, in that capacity, to the office of the Directorate of Technical Education. For going on official inspection duty, the appellant the use of a jeep belonging to State- University. The driver of the jeep, however, was an employee of the State Government under the control of the Director of Technical Education, Madras. 2. One day at about 7 a. m. the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Dr. Ida Bella Scuddar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1979
Reported in: (1980)14CTR(Mad)295; [1980]123ITR104(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, 1953, at the instance of the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, the following questions have been referred :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the deceased had retained her domicile of origin of the United States of America and that her foreign assets cannot be included in the estate duty assessment ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the department had not discharged the onus of proving that the deceased had abandoned her domicile of origin in favour of Indian domicile '2. This reference arose out of the estate duty proceedings consequent on the death of Dr. Ida B. Scuddar. She was born in the North Arcot District on the 19th December, 1870. She comes from a family of medical men. Dr. John Scuddar, her grandfather, was a successful New York doctor. But in 1819,...
Tag this Judgment!D. Rajapathi Vs. the University of Madurai, Represented by the Registr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ246
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The facts giving rise to this civil miscellaneous appeal may be briefly stated.2. The University of Madurai had obtained the State Government's permission to raise buildings for staff quarters at Madurai. The actual work of construction of the buildings and their supervision were with the Directorate of Technical Education, Technical Division, Madras which is a Department of the State, Government. Rajapathi, the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal, is an Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Madras. It was part of his duty to supervise the construction of the staff quarters in the Madurai University, for he was attached, in that capacity , to the office of the Directorate of Technical Education. For going on official inspection duty, the appellant was given the use of a jeep belonging to the University The driver of the jeep, however, was an employee of the State Government under the control of the Director of Technical Education, Madras.3...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Meera Mohideen and ors. Vs. A.K. Subramania Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ114
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The appellants in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are a firm of partners carrying on business under the firm name 'Nowsath Industries.' The first respondent was once an employee under the firm, but he was discharged from service. The reopon, he moved the Labour Court to compute the amount due to him from his employer. The claim before the Labour Court was made under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, after inquiry, passed an order on 30th December, 1969, computing the first respondent's dues from his employer at Rs. 1296.04 with subsequent interest. This decision of the Labour Court was forwarded to the State Government in due course. The State Government thereafter issued a certificate to the District Collector to recover the amount from the appellant-firm as arrears of land revenue. It may be observed, at this stage, that those certificate proceedings were in accordance with what Section 33-C(l) provided as a mode of rec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Santosh Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC314(Mad)
C.S.P. Singh, J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, which has been treated as a revision in view of the amendment in the law.2. This is a hard case for the assessee, who has been made liable to tax on account of not adopting the proper remedy that may have been available to him at the relevant point of time. The assessee sold goods in the course of inter-State trade in the assessment year 1962-63 of the value of Rs. 15, 186. This turnover was brought to tax. During the assessment year 1963-64, the goods were returned to the assessee and were resold. The Sales Tax Officer brought this turnover to tax on the ground that the price received for these goods represented the turnover of the assessment year 1963-64. An appeal filed by the assessee on this point failed, but the revision succeeded. The revising authority has allowed the revision on the ground that as the assessee had paid tax on these goods in the assessment year 1962-63, the principle of natural justice dem...
Tag this Judgment!Boopathy Vs. Dharmalingam Alias Perumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ401
T. Sathiadev, J.1. This appeal is preferred against an order of remand made by the lower appellate Court in A.S. No. 198 of 1975 which decided the preliminary issue on the aspect of res judicata that was pleaded before the trial Court, which dismissed the suit as barred by res judicata by its judgment dated 23rd October, 1975. The lower appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh disposal after deciding the preliminary point in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The present suit was laid on the basis that the suit properties which consist of five items of landed properties belonged originally to one Ayyam Perumal Gounder who had four sons, Ramasami, Krishnan, Adhimoolam and Narayanasami and that the plaintiff is the son of Arumugam alias Ramasami, son of Krishnan. After the death of Ayyam Perumal, his four sons enjoyed the properties as an undivided one and that no partition was effected between the four brothers. The first son of Ayyam Perumal, namely Ramasami died leaving behind Go...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. Ali HussaIn M. Jeevaji and An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1979
Reported in: [1980]123ITR420(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - These two references arise ou4 of a common transaction of the formation of a partnership on the following facts : There was a firm called N. A. Taiyabali and Company, carrying on business at No. 294, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras. The firm consisted of, (1) Goolamally Mohamadally, (2) Ali Hussain Mulla, (3) Hatimbhai Mulla, and (4) Fatambai Jeevaji. Each one of the partners had 1/4 share in the partnership firm. The firm had two branch office, one at Devaraja Mudali Street and another at Sembudas Street. By a release deed dated May 4, 1959, Fatambai Jeevaji took over the Devaraja Mudali Street branch, after relinquishing her rights and interest in the partnership firm. Similarly, Hatimbhai Mulla took over the branch office at Sembudas Street, after relinquishing all his rights and interest in the partnership firm Taiyabali and company. After the retirement of these two partners, Goolamally Mohamadally and Ali Hussain Mulla were the two that were left to carry on the busi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingam Vs. Manicka Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ350
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This second appeal is from Pondicherry. It raises a question as to how the law of intestate succession operates in the territory of Pondicherry, when a Hindu father dies possessed of ancestral property and leaves both male and female issue.2. In this case, one Arumugha of Pondicherry had two sons and two daughters. He died in 1966, possessed of an item of ancestral immovable property. After his death, one of his daughters, Muniammal, purported to sell an one-fourth share in that property to one Manicka. The sale was effected apparently under the impression that Muniammal was entitled under the law to one-fourth share as one of her father's four children. The sale was in the year 1968. While so, Arumugha's elder son, Subramanian, executed a sale of the very same property in the next year 1969, to one Ramalinga. He purported to sell the property, as kartha of the family and for necessity.3. In 1972, Manicka brought a suit in the Additional District Munsif's Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Annavi Moopan Vs. Silambayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ382
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 554 of 1972 in the Court of District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli is the appellant. The respondent herein field the suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit property. According to him, the suit site belonged to him and the defendant took it on lease by executing a registered lease deed on 21st August, 1964, marked as Exhibit A-1, for putting up a superstructure on the site, agreeing to remove it at the end of the lease period of three years and to give vacant possession. The rent payable was Rs. 12 per annum. As the defendant did not pay the rent and as the period of lease had expired, the plaintiff came forward with the present suit for the relief mentioned above. The appellant-defendant contested the suit stating that the land was a common property belonging to twenty-two persons, that the plaintiff could not have leased out more than the extent to which he was entitled, that the defendant has been in occupation of 25 cents of land wh...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rathnam Vs. R. Kulandaivelu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ12
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 662 of 1976 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Sankari at Salem, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiff from taking water through the electric motor installed in the suit well in R.S. No. 48/2. Pending the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1733 of 1976 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiff from taking water through the electric motor installed in the suit well. The suit as well as the petition have been contested by the defendant. The first Court considered the contentions of the parties and found on merits of justification for passing an order enabling the plaintiff to draw water from the suit well through the electric motor installed in t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »