Chennai Court January 1980 Judgments
A. Krishnaswami Vs. S. Rasheeda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ463
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The petitioner herein unsuccessfully contended before the District Munsif Tiruchirapalli, in E.A. No. 374 of 1979 on the file of his Court that the decree for ejectment passed against him in the above suit was inoperative, inexecutable and null and void. The said petition was filed under Sections 47 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960(hereinafter referred to as the Act). Consequent on the dismissal of the petition the petitioner has approached this Court for reliefs.2. The facts lie within a narrow compass. The respondent sought ejectment of the petitioner from the house leased out to him and succeeded in obtaining a decree for possession in the above said suit. The petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 438 of 1974 on the file of the District Court, Tiruchirapalli. During the pendency of the appeal, the town where the suit property is situate was constituted a municipality and au...
Tag this Judgment!E.K. Venkaimarbon Vs. Dakshinamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ275
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The question in this case is whether an appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 hereinafter called the Rent Control Act has power to excuse the delay in filing an appeal from an order of the Rent Controller. The appellate authority concerned ia this ease is Thiru A. Raman, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, He said that the Rent Control Act gave him no power to excuse any delay in the appeal. He said that the Act was a complete Code in itself. He said that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 had no application to the proceedings before him as an appellate authority under the Kent Control Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge is light in thinking that the Rent Control Act is a complete Code. But that, by itself, does not rule out the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Limitation Act, 1963 is a central legislation on a concurrent subject under oar Constitution. It lays down generally ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindaraja Odayar Vs. Admimoola Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ504
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The only question arising in this Civil revision petition filed by the defendant, is whether the Court below was right in entertaining an application filed by the petitioner in a suit, for determination of future mesne profits. The suit brought by the plaintiff in the first instance was one for a declaration and injunction in respect of three items of nanja land. Later he suitably amended the plaint and asked for an alternative relief by way of possession. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and possession was granted to him. The defendant appealed against the decree and failed both in the first appellate Court and in this Court in second appeal. The second appeal was disposed of on 8th January, 1976. Subsequently, in 1978 the plaintiff filed an application before the trial Court for determination of the future mesne profits. This application purported to be under Order 21, Rule 12. The defendant opposed the application on the ground that ther...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Refineries Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: [1982]49STC134(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These two revision petitions have been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras, relating to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. For the assessment year 1967-68, the disputed turnover came to Rs. 4,07,875.53 and for 1968-69 it was Rs. 1,88,016.21. During these years, the assessee had effected sales of calendars, novelties, scrap materials and capital assets, etc. The assessing authority originally excluded the turnover from the assessment relying on a decision of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1968 21 STC 227. Subsequently the Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court in the said case as reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. : [1973]2SCR636 . The assessing authority therefore sought to reopen the assessment by taking proceedings under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. T...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore-2 Vs. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: [1982]51STC398(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Coimbatore, dated 24th February, 1976. The assessee is doing business in sago in Sellappampatti, Namakkal, under the name and style of Rathna and Company. The assessing authority determined the turnover at Rs. 14,67,956. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and before him the assessee produced four C forms for a total sum of Rs. 75,005 and prayed for concessional rate of tax on the aforesaid turnover. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not accept those forms observing that they should have been produced before the assessing authority and that they could not be produced before the appellate authority. Against this order, the assessee appealed to the Tribunal. It was contended that on 14th February, 1975, when the matter was posted for hearing, the assessee's clerk prayed for some more time being granted for the production of C forms, that no...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Binny Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: [1982]49STC125(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This revision has been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 13th January, 1976, for the assessment year 1969-70. The assessee was assessed to tax on a turnover of Rs. 37,05,572.97 on 26th June, 1971. The assessee appealed against this assessment relating to certain sales of what are called workmen stores, to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter to the Tribunal. It appears that the assessing authority had left out a sum of Rs. 2,50,019.21 representing the sale value of gunnies, discarded machinery and empty drums, proceeding on the view that such sales were not taxable. At the relevant time, there was a decision of this Court in the case of Thirumagal Mills [1967] 20 STC 287 which was to the effect that such items could not be taxed. This view of this Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in Burmah Shell's case : [1973]2SCR636 . The Deputy Commissioner sought to revise the order of the assessing authority under section 32 of...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC220(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. These three revision petitions have been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras. The assessments relate to 1971-72 to 1973-74. The assessee is a manufacturer and dealer in ultramarine blue. The assessee paid 'discount' described as 'quantity discount' under a scheme subject to periodical variations. It is stated that the quantity discount is allowed on the basis of customer's off-take in a specified period. The rate of discount and the quantity to be taken are indicated in the scheme. If the purchases during a half-year period January to June or July to December exceeded, for example, 12 cases of large, medium, small or temple blue or 24 cases of some other items, etc., there will be a discount of 1 per cent and if the sales exceeded certain higher quantities, then the discount was higher. Similarly, if the total purchases by a dealer exceeded Rs. one lakh in a year, 3 per cent discount was allowed and if the turnover exceeded...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu Ammal and anr. Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad192
ORDER1. These are Civil Revision Petitions to revise the order of the learned Tenth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 5th day of October, 1976 dismissing C. M. P. Nos. 7012 and 7013 in L. A. C. No. 383 of 1965 Certain ands were acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act, and since there was a dispute regarding the claim to the compensation, a reference was made to the City Civil Court, Madras, under Ss. 30 and 31 of the Act. The three rival claimants were Alamelu, Ammal, Jayammal, the petitioners respectively in the two Civil Revision Petitions and Nagiah Naidu, the second respondent in the two civil revision petitions. The reference was numbered as LA.C. No.509 of 1965. On 11th April 1967 it was decided in the said L.A.C. N6. 509 of 1965 that the said Nagiah Naidu did not have any interest in the land and it was only the two petitioners in these petitions who had interest in the land and they alone will be entitled to the compensation. Against this decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Madurambal Ammal and ors. Vs. T. Narasinga Rajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ563
ORDERM.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsif, Sholinghur, dated 21st September, 1974 in I. A No. 324 of 1974 in O.S. No. 381 of 1971. The petitioners herein were the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 381 of 1971. The execution proceedings were stayed on 26th July, 1973 under Section 20 of Tamil Nadu Act V of 1938, read with Tamil Nadu Act VIII of 1973. The proviso to Section 20 states:Provided that where within sixty days after the application for stay has been granted the judgment-debtor does not apply to the Court which passed the decree for relief under Section 19 or where an application has been so made and is rejected, the decree shall be executed as it stands, not withstanding anything contained in this Act to the contrary.On the basis of this proviso, the petition to amend the decree under Section 19 of the said Act should have been filed on or before 24th September, 1973. However, the petitioners filed the petition under Section 19 o...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kalyanaraman Vs. the Inspecting Assistant, Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1980
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ470
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 20th January, 1975, relating to the petitioner's confidential report for the year 1973-74, as confirmed by the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, dated 16th August, 1975.2. Though a long affidavit, followed by an equally long counter-affidavit, has been filed in this case, the short point that is raised relates to certain adverse remarks made against the petitioner in this confidential report for 1973-74. The Inspector of Income-tax, attached to the Income-tax Officer, Salary Circle, as a Reporting Officer, sent a report relating to the petitioner in Part I of the form prescribed for confidential report for Upper Division Clerks, in respect of 1973-74. In the column under the heading 'Amenability to Discipline', the Reporting Officer remarked 'Disputatious'. Part II of the form prescribed relates to the remarks of the Income-t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »