Chennai Court October 1980 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.
K.M. Abdul Jabbar Vs. Indo Singapore Traders P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad118
1. The second defendant in suit No. 2598 of 1975 on the file of the High Court of Republic of Singapore against whom F. P. No. 9 of 1976 has been filed on the file of the District Court, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam, is the appellant herein.2. The first respondent herein obtained a decree for a sum of $ 30,000, against the appellant herein and the second respondent in suit No. 2598 of 1975 on the file of the High Court of Republic of Singapore on 20th October, 1975. The suit claim was based on an arrangement contained in a deed dated 3rd February,1975. The first respondent-decree-holder filed E. P. 9 of 1976, on the file of the District Court, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam, for recovery of Rs. 1,09,840 by attachment and sale of the immoveable properties mentioned in the list attached to the execution petition. The second respondent herein, who was the first respondent in the execution petition before the Court below, remained exparte. The second defendant, who was the second respond...
K.M. Abdul Jabbar Vs. Jndo Singapore Traders (P.) Ltd., Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ318
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The second defendant in suit No. 2598 of 1975 on the file of the High Court of Republic of Singapore against whom E.P. No. 9 of 1976 has been filed on the file of the District Court, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam is the appellant herein.2. The first respondent herein obtained a decree for a sum of 30,000 dollars against the appellant herein and the second respondent in Suit Mo 2598 of 1975 on the file of the High Court of Republic of Singapore on 20th October, 1975. The suit claim was based on an arrangement contained in a deed dated 3rd February, 1975. The first respondent-decree-holder filed E.P. No. 9 of 1976 on the file of the District Court, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam, for recovery of Rs. 1,09,840 by attachment and sale of the immoveable properties mentioned in the list attached to the execution petition The second respondent herein, who was the first respondent in the execution petition before the Court below remained ex parte. The second defendant, w...
Perumalswamy Mudaliar Vs. R. Arumugham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ483
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the lower Court rejecting the appellant's petition for leave to institute the suit as an indigent person.2. The appellant has filed a suit for cancellation of two settlement deeds executed by him in favour of his wife and son. The court-fee payable on the plaint comes to Rs. 3,001. The appellant, in his application for permission to institute the suit as an indigent person, claimed that he has no property other than the proper ties covered by the suit and therefore be should be permitted to sue as an indigent person.3. However, the application for permission to sue as an indigent person was opposed by the first respondent herein, who is no other than the son of the appellant. His case was that the appellant is in possession of the house and other landed properties covered by the two settlement deeds, deriving much income therefrom and that apart from this, he is also doing money-lending business. It was also alleged b...
In Re: Ayyadurai Devar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: 1981CriLJ258
ORDER1. The accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 621 of 1976 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, are the petitioners in this revision. The first accused was convicted under S. 409 I.P.C., and the second accused was convicted under Section 409 read with with S. 109 I.P.C. and each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine months there under. They preferred an appeal C.A. No. 238 of 1977 before the Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuran Division at Madurai, and the learned Sessions Judge, on a reappraisal of the materials, found no justification for interference, either with the conviction or the sentence and dismissed the appeal. The present revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge. 2. Mr. S. Pichai, learned counsel for the petitioners, did not trouble me with the facts of the case on merits, but was content to put forth an argument that even on the facts pleaded and proved by the prosecution, there is no offence made out within the meaning of Section 4...
Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore-2 Vs. the Ku ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: [1981]47STC354(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee, a dealer in tea, reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 18,25,301.23 and Rs. 7,41,308.89, respectively, for the year 1973-74. In fact he ought to have excluded in the total turnover a sum of Rs. 10,83,992.00 as they relate to outside sales. While determining the total and taxable turnover, the assessing officer held that in respect of sale of manure which was not shown in the balance sheet (sic), though second sales, the turnover relating to the same will have to he included in the total turnover of the assessee. He then proceeded to estimate the turnover of sale of manure and estimated it at Rs. 3,00,000. He also included a sum of Rs. 4,061.34 to the taxable turnover as miscellaneous income. Ultimately the assessing officer determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 7,44,473.00 as against Rs. 7,41,308.89 as reported by the assessee. The total turnover was determined at Rs. 10,45,370.73 including the estimated sale of manure. Since the total turnover thu...
P. Thangavelu Vs. R. Dhanalakshmi Ammal and ors. and S. Dhanalakshmi A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ314
V. Sethuraman, J.1. These two appeals arise out of some common facts. However, we would first consider the Letters Patent Appeal before we go into the O.S.A.2. This appeal has been filed by one Thanga-velu, who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 5265 of 1967. The relevant facts which gave rise to this appeal are as follows:3. There was one Munuswamy Naicker, who had a wife by name Kuppammal. Under Exhibit A-1, dated 16th October, 1902, the suit property was purchased in the name of Kuppammal. Munuswamy Naicker left a will dated 25th January, 1922, the photostat copy of which has been marked as Exhibit A-3. In that will Munuswamy treated the property purchased in the name of the said Kuppammal as his property and made dispositions accordingly. They had a daughter by name Vaduvambal, who was married to one Velu Naicker. At the time of the will, Vaduvambal, her husband and her children were living with him. Vaduvambal had three sons and a daughter by name Dhanalakshmi, the daughter being the e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›