Chennai Court October 1980 Judgments
Land Acquisition Officer and Special Deputy Collector, Rural Housing V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1980
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ59
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the order of the District Judge of Pudukottai in L.A.O.P. No. 47 of 1974 on the file of his Court. The said petition related to a reference made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, by the Land Acquisition Officer (Special Deputy Collector - Rural Housing) Pattukottai. The facts in brief are as follows: An extent of 1.22 acres of wet land in Survey No. 25215 in No. 157, Avudayarkoil, Aranthangi Taluk, belonging to the Deity Sri Athmanathaswamy was acquired by the Government for a public purpose to wit providing house sites to landless rural workers. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated by means of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in 1973. An enquiry under Section 9 of the Act was held on 7th January, 1974. at the, Special Deputy Collector's office at Pattukottai. On that day the agent of the Adheenakarthar of the Thiruvaduthurai Adheenam (hereinafter referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Padmavathy Ammal (Died) and ors. Vs. E.R. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ359
T. Sathiadev, J.1. The landlady is the petitioner. She filed the petition under Section 10(2)(i) on the ground of wilful default; under Section 10(3)(a)(1) requiring the premises, for her own use and occupation; and under Section 10(2)(ii)(b) since the tenant has converted the premises for a different use, namely for non-residential purpose, when the tenancy was only for residential purpose, and therefore liable to be evicted under Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960.2. In her petition, she stated that the premises bearing Door No. 24, North Part Street, Venkatapuram, Ambattur was let out to the tenant for a monthly rental of Rs. 200 and that the premises is required for her own use and occupation as she does not own any other house, and that it was let out only for residential purpose by the petitioner, but the tenant has now started using the premises for non-residential purpose, namely for a laundry which causes nuisance and inconvenience to the neighbours, and that he has not paid rent fo...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Jagat Textiles, Represented by Its Partner Lal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ394
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner herein, who filed a petition under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, asking for additional accommodation. He filed I. A. No. 287 of 1979 for amending the petition by stating that due to typographical error, Door No 16, Manjanakara Street, was not mentioned and Door No. 51, Mahal Street, Madurai, alone was mentioned, but the description of the property in the petition would necessarily include both the door numbers.2. Both the authorities held that (sic) description in the petition would necessarily include both the door numbers (sic) no prejudice could be caused to the tenant by allowing the amendment, because he has already raised his defence in respect of the entire premises leased to him, he being the tenant of both the door numbers. It is a corner building in which, in the major portion, the landlord is carrying on his business. Door No. 16, faces Manjanakara Street, wherea...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rani Lakshmi Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC406(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1968-69, the assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 28,20,167.02 and Rs. 1,93,869.86 respectively under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee had claimed in this return a deduction of Rs. 1,06,239.96 as relating to inter-State purchases of cotton. Though the assessing officer rejected this claim on the ground that no proof was produced by the assessee to establish that they were inter-State purchases of cotton, on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, accepted the contention and deleted the said turnover, accepting the return submitted by the assessee. Subsequently on the ground that certain turnover has escaped assessment, the assessing officer invoked his jurisdiction; under section 16 and after issuing notices and calling for objections, revised the assessment including a sum of Rs. 2,29,999.23 as a taxable turnover. But on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that it was an inte...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Madras Tanning Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1980
Reported in: [1983]54STC327(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessee in this sales tax revision is a dealer in hides and skins. He purchases raw hides and skins in the State of Tamil Nadu. After tanning them the assessee sells them as dressed hides and skins. Sales of dressed hides and skins are effected by the assessee both inside the State and also in the course of inter-State trade. 2. For 1973-74, the assessee effected sales of dressed hides and skins in the course of inter-State trade in the sum Rs. 2,24,720.55. The hides and skins in question were originally purchased in this State in their raw state. The assessee tanned them before selling them as dressed hides and skins in the course of inter-State trade. There is no doubt that this sales turnover of Rs. 2,24,720.55 in dressed hides and skins is assessable under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In point of fact, however, no assessment has yet been made on the assessee on this turnover under the Central Sales Tax Act for the relevant year 1973-74. Consequently...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Polyweb Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1980
Reported in: [1982]51STC364(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This tax revision case raises the question whether high density polyethylene (HDPE) woven fabrics are 'artificial silk fabrics' within the contemplation of item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Sales Tax Act reads as under : 'Cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics, as defined in items 19, 21 and 22 respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944).' 2. The scope of the exemption provision in the Sales Tax Act is clear. That which is exempt from sales tax is rayon or artificial silk fabrics. What rayon fabric is or artificial silk fabric is must be determined by turning to their definition in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. But when we turn to the Central Excises and Salt Act, we almost draw a blank. Here is how the relevant articles are defined in item 22 of the First Schedule to that A...
Tag this Judgment!Needle Industries Ltd. by Secretary and Prohibition Officer vs. the Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1980
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ408Mad
1. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 12th May, 1980 and made herein, and the Counter affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the order relevant to the aforesaid prayer on the file of the 1st respondent comprised in the return of the 1st Respondent herein to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. M. R. Narayanaswami for M/s. T. S. Gopalan, P. Ibrahim Kabilla and P. Raghunathan, Advocates for the Petitioner, and of Mr. S. Govind Swaminathan Advocate for the 1st Respondent and of Mr. N. G. R. Prasad for M/s. Row and Reddy Advocates for the 2nd Respondent the Court made the following orders :-2. This writ petition raises an interesting question which may require the attention of the Legislature as to the exact scope of the appellate authority under S. 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, a Company Incorporated Unde ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ433
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The petitioner, Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited, owns a tea estate in a place called Mudis in Anai Malais. This is a place where the petitioner's employees and other residents in the locality have their residences and transact their business. With the object of providing entertainment to their own employees and the general public at Mudis, the petitioner constructed a cinema theatre with subsidiary buildings and annexes. They had the buildings equipped with fixtures, items of furniture and certain items of machinery and articles to render the theatre fit for projection and exhibition of cinematograph films. The construction of the theatre was completed in October, 1960. The fixation of machinery and fittings in the theatre was also proceeding almost to a conclusion. At that time, the petitioner leased out the entire cinema theatre complex to one Narayanaswami Pillai, the respondent in this revision. The lease was for a period of five years at a month...
Tag this Judgment!Jaithun Beevi and ors. Vs. Begum Dustagir
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ373
P. R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the respondents in R. C. O. P. No. 96 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Madurai taluk) against the order passed in C. M. A. No. 237 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai. The respondent herein, who is the petitioner in the Rent Control Original Petition filed an eviction petition alleging that one S. M. S. Mohideen Batcha came as a tenant in respect of door Nos. 8 and 9, Jarikaikar a Street, Ward No. 12, near police lines, Madurai town, on a monthly rent of Rs. 33, that the said rent was subsequently raised to Rs. 50 per month from January, 1970 onwards, that subsequently S. M. S. Mohideen Batcha agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per month, that there were arrears in the payment of rent by S. M. S. Mohideen Batcha beginning from 1st May, 1974, onwards that Mohideen Batcha died four months prior to the filing of the eviction petition, leaving behind him the petitioners 1 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Saravana Chit Fund Co., Firm Periakulam Through Its Managing Partn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ437
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This revision arises out of an order passed in I. A. No, 679 of 1971 in A. S. No. 18 of 1978.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the application I. A. No. 679 of 1978 are as follows: The petitioner in this interlocutory application, as the plaintiff, filed the suit O. S. No. 229 of 1977, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Periakulam, to recover a sum of Rs. 3,150 with interest from the respondents herein. The plaintiff, which is a chit fund company, had the first defendant as its member. The first defendant joined Chit No. 21-group which is for a total sum of Rs. 5,000. This amount is payable in 25 instalments at the rate of Rs. 200 per month. In the second instalment, the first defendant bid at the auction on 15th March, 1976, and received the amount. After doing so, the first defendant executed a pronote for Rs. 4,600 for the future 23 installments. This was on 2nd April, 1976. According to the petitioner, the first defendant paid Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »