Chennai Court November 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.
A.N. Anthony Packia Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1980
Reported in: [1982]135ITR527(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J. 1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the income derived from the cutting and sale of Odai trees will fall within the meaning of agricultural income as defined in the Tamil Nadu Agrl. I.T. Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The Commr. of Agrl I.T. in his order, dated March 31, 1978, which is under challenge in this writ petition has stated that the entire extent of land under odai trees is used as grazing land for cattle. The seeds available in the excreta of cattle sprout spontaneously during rainy season. The farmers till the soil, enabling the plant to grow. As per the practice obtaining in Tirunelveli district, plants are allowed to grow in the fields for 4 to 5 years after which they are cut an sold as fuel-wood. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the basic and variety of agricultural operations as are generally understood may not all be there still certain amount of attention and...
Hathibudi Anandar Vs. Govindan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ250
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The petitioner is the tenant of a non-residential building in Woraiyur, Tiruchirapalli. The landlord applied to the Rent Controller for an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961. The landlord stated in his petition that he required the building bona fide for setting up therein a retail business in rice to be carried on by his foster son. The tenant resisted the petition. But the Rent Controller ordered eviction. The order was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority.2. In this revision, the tenant questions the validity of the order or eviction on the ground that a tenant cannot be evicted to accommodate a land lord's foster son. The argument is that a foster son is not comprehended within the ambit of the expression, 'member of the family' occurring in Section 10(3) (a) (iii) and defined in Section 2(6-A), of the Act.3. I uphold this contention as well-founded. While a landlord can a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Vijaya Productions Pvt. L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1980
Reported in: [1985]152ITR613(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The Commissioner of Income-tax has prayed for a direction to the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal in appeal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in canceling the order of the Income-tax Officer withdrawing the development rebate already allowed for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1972-73 consequent to the conversion of the assessee's proprietary business into a partnership firm ?' 2. The point involves the correctness of the action of the ITO in withdrawing the development rebate already allowed for the plant and Machinery installed in the business. At the time of the installation, the business was carried on by a sole proprietor. Subsequently, he took in partners and continued the same business as a partnership business with the aid of the same machinery. The ITO invoked his power under s. 155(5) of the I.T. Act to withdraw the deve...
Kothandaraja Pillai Vs. Piramadesam Village, Viswakula Street, Swamy V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ344
V. Ramaswamy, J.1. The fourth defendant is the appellant. The first plaintiff is a temple represented by its trustee the second plaintiff. Plaintiffs 5 to 6 are the worshippers. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for a declaration that the suit properties are owned by the first plaintiff temple and for recovery of possession with mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit properties were originally owned by one Chidambara Asari. He died leaving his widow and a son and on the death of her son, the widow succeeded to the entirety of the properties. While thus in possession and enjoyment, she executed a settlement deed on 9th December, 1931, endowing the properties in favour of the first plaintiff-temple retaining a life interest in herself but subject to the condition that she was under a liability to light the temple with one lamp everyday at an annual cost of Rs. 5. The suit properties which were two items were the subject-matter of attachment and sale in execution of ...
A.V.K. Marimuthu Nadar and Brothers Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1980
Reported in: [1981]47STC314(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The appellant, a dealer in grocery articles had reported total and taxable turnovers for the year 1970-71 at Rs. 3,79,718.26 and Rs. 2,16,223.58 respectively, in their form No. A-2 returns claiming exemption on a turnover of Rs. 1,63,494.68 towards the sales turnover of foodgrains, second sales of oil-seeds and sale of exempted goods. On a surprise inspection made on 18th December, 1970, certain slips of papers relating to transactions of business of the assessee were recovered. After issuing notice and calling for explanations on the discrepancies found in the accounts as also on the turnover covered by the slips, the assessing officer rejected the accounts and proceeded to estimate the turnover. The slips recovered during inspection covered a period of 15 days and the sales suppressed as disclosed in the slips worked out to Rs. 9,087. On the basis that the slips showed that the assessee should have resorted to suppression continuously during the earlier periods as wel...
Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner ( ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: [1981(43)FLR17]; (1981)IILLJ136Mad
1. The second respondent Jayapal was in the service of the petitioner. Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem for seven years from 1st September, 1969 to 15th October, 1976 on which date he resigned from service. The petitioner rejected the claim of the second respondent for gratuity on the ground that he had not put in 'Continuous service' as required under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The second respondent filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Act. The petitioner contended that the second respondent had not actually worked for 240 days excluding the days of absence on account of sickness, accident, leave, lay-off, strike or lock-out and weekly holidays and, therefore, he was not in continuous service as defined under the Act. The controlling Authority negatived the contention of the petitioner and held that the second respondent was entitled to gratuity for the period of his service. The petitioner preferred an appeal under S. 7(7) of th...
Vedapatasala Trust, Sooramangalam, by Trustee S. Guruswami Iyer and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ225
ORDERM.M. Ismail, CJ.1. One of these cases has been referred to a Bench by Ratnavel Pandian, J.2. All these Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Act LVIII of 1961 read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raise a. common question namely, whether the public trusts involved in these Civil Revision Petitions running the Vedapatasalas would come within the scope of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Tamil Nadu Act LVIII of 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Before we refer to the relevant statutory provisions, we shall refer to the findings of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and the Land Tribunal on appeal. In C. R. P. No. 101(sic) of 1976 the Tribunal has found as a fact that the trust in question was conducting Vedapatasala and the trust itself was known as Vedapatasala trust Sooramangalam. We shall refer to the findings in C. R. P. No. 1453 of 1976 after referring to the facts in the other...
Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem Represented by Its Manager, Mr. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ412
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. Tae second respondent Jayapal was in the service of the petitioner, Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem for seven years from 1st September, 1969 to 15th October, 1976 on which date he resigned from service. The petitioner rejected the claim of the second respondent for gratuity on the ground that he had not put in 'Continuous service' as required under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 The second respondent filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Act. The petitioner contended that the second respondent had not actually worked for 240 days excluding the days of absence on account of sickness, accident, leave, lay off, strike or lock out and weekly holidays and therefore, he was not in continuous service as defined under the Act. The Controlling Authority negatived the contention of the petitioner and held that the second respondent was entitled to gratuity for the period of his service. The petitioner preferred an appea...
M.S. Hameed Vs. Kanniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ477
V. Ratnam, J.1. The tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1973 is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition which is directed against the order dismissing his application in LA. No. 3 of 1979 praying for the setting aside of an ex parte order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of costs as directed. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Act XXIII of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 16th December, 1978, an ex parte order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3 of 1979 in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1973 to set aside--the ex parte order of eviction and on 8th July, 1980. the Rent Controller passed a conditional order setting aside the ex parte order of eviction directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 25 as costs to the landlord respondent on or before 16th July, 1980. However, the petitioner did not pay the costs withi...
Mrs. Premila Devi Vs. R. Jayachandran, Sub-inspector of Police, Pallip ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ497
ORDERGokulakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is for issue of a writ of habeas carpus, directing the respondents to produce the child, Harihara Sudhan, before this Honourable Court and to deliver him to the petitioner and set him at liberty. The petitioner has alleged in the affidavit in support of this petition that she got married to the first respondent on 3rd September, 1976. The second respondent is her mother-in-law. A male child was born on 20th May, 1979, and its name is Harihara Sudhan. The petitioner has further alleged that the first respondent herein, under the instigation of the second respondent and his sister, meted out cruel treatment to the petitioner and that the first respondent abused her stating that she has not brought enough dowry from her parents. The petitioner has further alleged that, subsequent to the birth of the child, Harihara Sudhan, the first respondent inflicted both physical and mental agony on the petitioner, that the respondents removed the child, wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »