Chennai Court June 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.
N. Kasia Pillai Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1979
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT617(Mad)
1. This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. P. Shantnugham, Advocate for the Petitioner, the Court made the following order : --2. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondents. The petitioner is a dealer in tobacco with an L-5 Licence and warehouse. On a special stock taking conducted by the Central Excise Department it was found that there was a shortage of 12091 Kgs., that is the recorded balance was 39,628 Kgs. whereas on physical check up it was found that there was a stock of only 27,537 Kgs. The Department considered two possibilities ; one is clandestine removal without permission from the warehouse in contravention of Rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules and alternatively driage or shortage due to natural causes falling under Rule 223-A. There being no clinching evidence to show that there was any clandesti...
Gnanaprakasam and ors. Vs. Sabasthi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ182
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiffs, whose suit for the recovery of possession and for past and future mense profits was dismissed by the Courts below, arc the appellants in this second appeal. According co the case of the appellants, the suit property originally belonged to one Arulayee Ammal who executed a deed on 18th June, 1956 in favour of the respondent herein. Later a suit in O.S. No. 670 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli, was filed by her against the present respondent for the cancellation of the said deed on the ground that the said deed was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. On 31st October, 1963, that suit was decreed and the appeal filed there from in A.S. No. 197 of 1965, Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, was also dismissed. Against that, the matter was carried in second appeal in S. A, No, 350 of 1966 and during the pendency of the second appeal, Arulayee Animal died and the present appellants were impleaded as her heirs and legal representative...
V. Bichawa Vs. M. Venkatesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ334
ORDER1. In Shanmugha Appah v. Abdul Hameed : AIR1974Mad133 Kailasam, J. (as he then was), took the view that, though persons, who receive rent on their own account or on behalf of any other person or on behalf of themselves or others, may in a sense be receiving rent on behalf of others as agents, that class of persons is not excluded under Section 10(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In another case, Syed Ibrahim v. Sudarsanam and Ors. (1972) T.L.N.J. 259 the same learned Judge expressed as follows:Section 10(8) provides that the landlord who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall not be entitled to apply for eviction of a tenant without the previous written consent of the landlord .... Section 19(1) specifically provides that there could be no eviction except in accordance with the provisions of Sections 10 and 14 to 16. Therefore, the eviction motioned in Section 10(8) cannot be confined...
K. Chinnathambi Gounder and anr. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1979
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ269
ORDERThis petition coming on for hearing on this day, before the Honourable Mr. Justice V. Kamaswami, pursuant to the order of the full Bench, dated 22nd June, 1979, the Court made the following Order :--(4th September, 1979).20. In view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3469 of 1976, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs....
S.A.M. Jameema Beevi and anr. Vs. Easwarlal Patel and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ355
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. These four civil revision petitions arise out of a common order made by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in an application filed by the petitioners as landladies for evicting the four tenants, each of whom is a respondent in each of these civil revision petitions, on the ground that the petitioners required the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority went into the question whether the petitioners satisfied all the prescriptions laid down in Section 14 (1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), and the concurrent finding of fact is that the petitioners have already established and manifested their bona fide intention to demolish the building and put up a construction as soon as they obtain delivery of possession of the demised premises. This concurrent finding of fact has not been challenged before me by learned Counsel for the respondents. But t...
Dr. N.R. Rao Alias N. Raghavendra Rao and anr. Vs. Premier Auto Electr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ1
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The revision petitioners herein filed H.R.C. No. 1433 of 1968, before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction of the respondent, under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960. They inter alia alleged that they are the owners of premises No. 4/A, Pattulos Road, Mount Road, Madras-2, a non-residential building, that they leased out a portion, of the said premises to M/s. Premier Auto Electric Private Ltd. (respondent) by a registered instrument bearing the date 28th October, 1961 for the purpose of running their administrative office, that the portion leased out consisted of an area of 2.225 sq. ft. in the ground floor and an area of 759 sq. ft. in the first floor, that Clause 9 of the lease deed specifically provides that the lessee should use the demised premises only for the purpose of having the administrative office of their business and for no other purpose, and that contrary to the covenant the respon...
T.K. Pattabhiraman Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1979
Reported in: [1981]130ITR785(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This reference at the instance of the assessee arises under Sections 256(1) of the I.T, Act. The following are the questions which are referred:'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer validly assumed jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 147(b) as far as the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, are concerned ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer can review his earlier decision whereby he had, while completing the original assessments, applied the provisions of Section 183(b)?' 2. The relevant facts are in a short compass. The original assessment for the assessment year 1967-68 was made on the 20th February, 1969, and for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, on February 13, 1970. For the assessment year 1967-68, the firm was not ...
S. Periasami Vs. Tmt. Chellammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ46
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The revision petition has been preferred by the second defendant in O.S. No. 61 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Melur. The first respondent herein, who is the plaintiff, is the wife of the first defendant, second respondent herein, and the mother of the second defendant-petitioner herein. She instituted the suit to obtain maintenance, past and future from the first defendant and inter alia to ask for a charge being created on the properties which belonged to the erstwhile joint family comprising of the defendants. While the suit has been instituted in the year 1977, the first defendant and the petitioner herein (2nd defendant) had effected a partition between themselves of the family properties under a partition deed!, dated 4th April, 1975, Exhibit B-2 being a registration copy of the partition deed. In the said partition, the plaint A schedule properties have been allotted to the first defendant-second respondent herein and the plain...
S. Ramamurthy Vs. the Management of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ396
ORDERA. Varadarajan, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order calling for the records in Industrial Dispute No. 33 of 1975 on the file of the Labour Court. Madras and quashing the order dated 24th March, 1976 passed therein.2. The petitioner was employed as a storekeeper of the first respondent Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli having entered service as stores assistant in 1966. According to the petitioner, on 21st June, 1973, when he was coming out of the factory of the first respondent, his cycle was checked by the Sainik (Watchman) and he was taken to the Sainik's room. It was alleged that a brass-screw, I' in length and weighing about 1.2 kg. was removed from his cycle, where it had been kept wrapped in a khaki cloth. The petitioner was taken by the Sainik to the Jamadar and his statement was recorded In the statement he had admitted that the rod was found in the...
K.Pl.S.Pl. Firm, Colombo by Its Partner K.Pl.S.Pl. Subramanian Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ483
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. A suit was filed by a firm purporting to be a partnership firm against four defendants. The defence was that all the partners who constituted the plaintiff partnership firm were not brought on record or their names disclosed. Learned Counsel for petitioner says that beyond this, the contesting defendants did not seek for a disclosure of the names of all the partners who constituted the partnership firm. Be that as it may, the suit went on and it is conceded that the suit has been dismissed and an appeal as against the dismissal was preferred by the plain tiff-firm as it was on record. It appears that the trial Court also went into the question about the maintainability of the suit by a partnership firm without fully disclosing the names of its other partners. The trial Court dismissed the suit also on the ground that such a suit without disclosing the names of all the partners was not maintainable. Being aggrieved by both findings of the trial Court, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »