Chennai Court November 1980 Judgments
Aviyur Mariamman Temple by Hereditary Trustee Parasuraman Vs. T.N. Sun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ392
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in A. S. No. 194 of 1977 remitting the suit O. S. No. 68 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirukoilur to decide the question as to who as between the parties to the suit is a hereditary trustee for the suit temple.2. The circumstances under which the suit came to be filed may briefly be stated : There is a temple called Aviyur Mariamman temple in Aviyur Village, Tirukovilur Taluk, South Arcot District. There is no dispute that the said temple is a public temple. The appellant herein filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959 for a declaration that the office of trusteeship in the suit temple is hereditary and that he is the hereditary trustee of the temple. The Deputy Commissioner granted the declaration prayed for by the appellant and the order of the Deputy Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!M. Venkatachalapathy Vs. Saroja Alias Thangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ440
V. Ratnam, J.1. The husband, who initiated proceedings against his wife under Section 13(1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act XXV of 1955 as amended by Act LXVIII of 1976, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the order dismissing an application filed by him to direct his wife, the respondent herein, to appear in Court and submit herself to a medical examination. The petitioner, in the course of his application, stated that the respondent is suffering from a deformity described as infantile uterus and it was only on account of this condition, she was not able to live a normal life with the petitioner and had left the petitioner since April, 1973 and living separately and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. That application was resisted by the respondent on several grounds, which need not be noticed in detail for purposes of the present civil revision petition. Suffice it to say that the Sub-Court, T...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Ammal Vs. Alagar Kothan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ487
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant herein is the decree-holder in O. S. No. 575 of 1972 and he obtained a decree in the said suit on 9th March, 1973. The respondent herein who is the judgment-debtor, filed an application on 25th December, 1973, for amendment of the decree and for scaling down the debt under Section 15(1) of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XXXVIII of 1972) hereinafter referred to as the Act), which had been published on 16th December, 1972. The said application was resisted by the decree-holder contending that the judgment-debtor is not a debtor as defined in the Act and therefore, be is not entitled to claim the benefits of the Act and the decree is not liable to be scaled down.2. The Court below held that the respondent-judgment-debtor was a debtor as defined in the Act and therefore, he is entitled to maintain the application under Section 15(1) of the Act for amendment of the decree and for scaling down the debt. The decision of the Court below has been challenged in...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras (Prosecution) Preventive Depart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1980
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT118(Mad)
1. Leslie Bertram D'Silva, the appellant in C. A. No. 830 of 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the first accused) was a co-pilot in Air Ceylon aircraft No. 4 R-ACN. That aircraft on a scheduled flight No. AE 323/324 from Colombo arrived at the airport at Meenambakkam at about 11.20 A.M. on 31-7-1975. After the passengers have left the aircraft, P.W. 1, Sriramamurthi a customs officer on duty at the airport went on board the said aircraft and saw the first accused handing over a white paper parcel to Duraiswamy Traffic Assistant, Air Ceylon, Madras (hereinafter referred to as the second accused) who, on seeing P.W. 1, the Customs Officer, kept the parcel in the cockpit. This act of Duraiswamy aroused the suspicion of the Customs Officer, P.W. 1, who went to the cockpit and took the parcel which was found to be heavy. P.W. 1 also examined a leather bag of the first accused and saw a blue cloth bag which was also found to be heavy. P.W. 1 brought the first accused and the second accused an...
Tag this Judgment!V. Datchinamurthy and anr. Vs. Asst. Director of Inspection, (intellig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: [1984]149ITR341(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. These are two writ petitions, which were originally posted along with W. Ps Nos. 828 and 2120 of 1977 and 3307 of 1978. As the points raised in these writ petitions required certain other contentions to be considered, these petitions on January 23, 1979. In both these write petitions the respective write petitioners have prayed for issue of a write of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent, that is the Assistant Director of Inspection from taking and proceedings under s. 131 of the I.T. Act or any other provision for the purpose of summoning the petitioners and taking evidence or recording statements in respect of any proceedings relating to the second respondent, viz., the Tamil Nadu Farmers Service Co-operative Federation. The learned counsel, Mr. S. Gopalaratnam, who appeared for these two write petitioners, wanted the write of prohibition to be issued in a modified form and not in the form in which it is set out in the petitions, as it was realised that a ba...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ganesan Vs. the State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: (1981)ILLJ64Mad
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. These writ petitions raise common questions for determination. In W.P. Nos. 757 & 758 of 1980, there are some special features which will be dealt with separately. It will be convenient to deal with the facts in W.P. 4386 of 1977. The petitioner is an officer working as sub-accountant in the China Bazaar Branch of the Central Bank of India Limited. The majority of the officers of the Bank as well the other staff who are styled as the Award staff are all members of the All India Central Bank Employees' Federation. The said Federation is affiliated to All India Bank Employees Association. Pursuant to the call given by the All India Central Bank Employees' Federation, the officers and award staff staged a demonstration for a duration of 30 minutes during working hours on the morning of 11-10-1977. There was a similar demonstration for 30 minutes on 17-10-1977 and for an hour on 19-11-1977. The demonstrations were held for the purpose of pressing their demands for bonu...
Tag this Judgment!Muzamil Leathers Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC166(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras-1, dated 18th July, 1980. The assessees were originally assessed on the total and taxable turnover of Rs. 25.61.049 and Rs. 12,81,392 respectively. Subsequently the assessing officer reopened the assessment under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, observing : 'On a further scrutiny of the records, it was found that the dealers had purchased raw hides and skins locally and sold the resultant tanned hides both locally and outside the State. According to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the proportionate value of raw hides and skins purchased locally, which have been tanned and sold outside the State and also held in closing stock at the end of the year has to be assessed to tax under entry 7(a) of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. This was omitted to be assessed to tax at the time of assessment. This defect requires rectificat...
Tag this Judgment!Sudalai Muthu Pillai Vs. Santhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ347
Shanmukham, J.1. This second appeal raises a nice question of law arising under the Indian Partnership Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).The short facts necessary for the occasion are as follows:(1). The suit is for the recovery of Rs. 4,750 on the allegation that under the agreement between the parties, the plaintiff should invest Rs. 3,000 and the defendant Rs 1,000 for purchasing types and other materials required for the business of printing the voters' list and that after defraying the expenses in regard to wages, rent, etc., they should share the profit. The plaintiff's case is that even on the date of agreement, he had paid Rs. 3,000 to the defendant and that after providing for all expenses, there could be a net profit of Rs. 2,000. The defendant received Rs. 4,011 and Rs 591.78 from the Government.(2). The defence is that as the agreement Exhibit A-1 is a partnership agreement and as the same is not registered as per mandate in the Act, the suit agreement cannot be enfo...
Tag this Judgment!Marudhavana Desigar Vs. Thangamani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ512
ORDERG. Ramunujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against a laconic and non-speaking order passed by the lower Court directing the scaling down of a mortgage debt.2. The appellant herein obtained a mortgage decree for a sum of Rs. 40,416.66 in O. S. No. 34 of 1971 on the file of the Sub-Court Thanjavur on the basis of a mortgage bond, dated 12th February, 1961 against defendants 1 to 5, the legal representatives of the original mortgagor, the 6th defendant, who claims to have purchased the equity of redemption in respect of item 1 and a shop in item 2 of the suit properties. After the passing of the decree, the 6th defendant alone filed an application on 12th September. 1974. under Section 19 of Act VI of 1938 as amended by Act VII of 1973, for scaling down the decree debt on the ground that she is an agriculturist. Her claim that she is agriculturist was disputed by the decree-holder, the appellant herein. According to the appellant, the 6th defendant was not an agriculturist at any tim...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Ahmed and Co., Represented by Its Partner S.A.M. Janaludeen Vs. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ495
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether for the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appropriate Government is the Central Government or the State Government of Tamil Nadu.2. The petitioner is a partnership firm and undertakes construction of buildings. The petitioner entered into a contract with the Central Warehousing Corporation, for the construction of a godown in the premises of the Golden Studio in Kodambakam, Madras. It is not disputed that the petitioner employs nearly 100 workers for the said construction. While so, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Madras-6 inspected the premises on 20th April, 1978. As a result of the inspection the petitioner was informed by a communication, dated 20th April, 1978 that the petitioner had not complied with the provisions of the Act in the matter of payment of wages and overtime wa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »