Chennai Court December 1980 Judgments
Rajagopalan Vs. Kamalammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Mad187
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the lower court granting permanent maintenance to the respondent herein at the rate of Rs. 111 a month as against the appellant herein.2. The appellant herein married the respondent on. 12-5-1962. They lived together only for a few months. and I hereafter the respondent left the husband and went to live with her parents. The appellant had been making attempts to bring herback. As the said attempts failed, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 0. P. 56 of 1976,and obtained a decree for restitution Of conjugal rights on 6-5-1975. The respondent however, did not obey the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights and she did not go and live with her husband. Thereafter, in view of the said conduct of the respondent refusing to come and live with him even after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights had been passed on 6-5-1975, the appellant sought a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between him and th...
Tag this Judgment!Addl Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. Gangabai Charities
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: [1983]142ITR718(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. There is a well-known building complex in Purasawalkam in the City of Madras called Dharmaprakash. The main building consists of a mandapam and other portions. Similar is the layout for an annexe. The buildings are much sought after for celebration of weddings and reception for which they are let out on rent, for three days at a time, at certain rates. The buildings are much sought after for celebration of weddings and reception for which they are let out on rent, for three days at a time, at certain rates. The building was constructed with a nucleus of a trust fund provided therefor by a lady called Ganga Bai, who was at that time in her nineties. With that fund a plot of land was purchased and the construction begun. The fund was augmented by her son, Seetharama Rao, who was a hotel owner, from his own contribution as well as from outside donations. Ganga Bai's original outlay amounted to Rs. 34,000 in all. But the funds which went into completion of the build...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh and Company Vs. the Commissioner for Land Revenue and Commercia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: [1981]48STC41(Mad)
ORDERPadmanabhan, J.1. The writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes, on 14th December, 1977, under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner is a registered dealer for the purposes of the Act. He is a dealer in battery plates. For the assessment year 1970-71 the Sales Tax Officer levied sales tax at the rate of 3 per cent on a multi-point basis. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercised suo motu powers conferred on him under section 32 of the Act and revised the order of the Sales Tax Officer by levying sales tax at the rate of 9 per cent under item 41 of the First Schedule to the Act. Against this order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the suo motu powers of revision conferred on the Board of Revenue under section 34 of the Act....
Tag this Judgment!The Liquidator and Co-operative Sub-registrar (Stores) Vs. M.S. Sahul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad295
1. The first defendant in 0. S. No 592 of 1969 on the file of the Additional District Munsif. Tiruneiveli, is the appellant in this second appeal The first respondent herein is the -plaintiff and respondents 2 to 6 are the other defendants in the said suit. The plaintiff laid the suit to set aside the claim order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirunelveli. In R. C. No 18972/67 dated 30-12-1967 and for declaration of his title over the suit property. The first defendant alone contested the suit and the other defendants remained ex part6. Apart from the merits, the first defendant also raised the plea of limitation in that the suit having come to be filed on 11-12-1968,six months beyond the date of the order of the Deputy Registrar, is barred under Rule 73 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules 1.96 - 3, hereinafter referred to as the 'rules'. The first court went into. the questions and held against the plaintiff boh on merits and on the question of...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Ramaswami Vs. Needle Industries (i) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ448
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J. dated 28th October, 1980 allowing W. P. No. 5141 of 1980, filed by the first respondent herein. For the purpose of understanding the prayer in the writ petition, it is necessary to refer to only a few. facts. Admittedly, the appellant herein was the employee of the first respondent. On 12th January, 1979, he wrote a letter addressed to the Secretary of the first respondent as follows-I shall be thankful if you will kindly relieve me from services from 12th January, 1979. This may be treated as a formal letter of resignation from me.On 12th January, 1979, itself the first respondent wrote the following letter addressed to the appellant-We are in receipt of your letter of today's date tendering your resignation from the services of our company. Your resignation has been accepted and in view of your special request we are pleased to enclose herewith cash of Rs. 2,960 representing two months' salary for notice period.Ther...
Tag this Judgment!The Liquidator and Co-operative Sub-registrar (Stores) P-2076 Melapala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ443
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The 1st defendant in O. S. No. 592 of 1969 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, is the appellant in this second appeal. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 6 are the other defendants in this said suit, The plaintiff laid the suit to set aside the claim order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tirunelveli, in R.C. No. 18972 of 1967, dated 30th December, 1967 and for declaration of his title over the suit property. The 1st defendant alone contested the suit and the other defendants remained ex parte Apart from the merits, the 1st defendant also raised the plea of limitation in that, the suit having come to be filed on 11th December, 1968, six months beyond the date of the order of the Deputy Registrar, is barred under Rule 76(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. The first Court went into the questions and held against the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Roadways Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR545(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J. 1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 18,64,065 which was distributed as dividend to the shareholders of the assessee-company should be excluded in the computation of the capital for ascertaining the 'statutory deduction' for the purpose of assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1970-71 ?' 2. Since we are referring this matter to a Full Bench, we feel that it is not necessary to set out the facts or the arguments in detail. Suffice it to state that the learned counsel for the assessee relied on a Full Bench judgment in Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1979]117ITR534(Mad) as concluding this question. In this decision, this court considered the scope of r. 1, Second Schedule, to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Since the assessee, in that case, was an insurance company, the argument on beha...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kuppuswamy Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1980
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Mad)189; [1982]135ITR235(Mad)
1. The question of law is referred to this court under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, runs as follows :"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the levy of penalties for the assessment years 1954-55 to 1961-62, under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"2. The case was originally heard by a Division Bench of this court. Though the learned judges were of the opinion that the facts in the present case were identical with those in Seth Lunidaram Tikamdas v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 824 (Mad), they were of the view that the attention of the court had not been specifically focused in that case to cases where the exact meaning that has to be assigned to the words "assessment completed" occurring in s. 297(2)(f) and (g) of the Act had been considered. It was in this connection that the learned judges referred to two decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Sheth Gunvantlal Mangaldas v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 740 and CIT v...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.K. Chandrasekaran Vs. the Official Receiver, Madurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad235
Ismail,C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of N. S. Ramaswami J. dated 6th October, 1975 made in A. A0. No. 182 of 1975. 0. S. No. 145 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai was a suit to enforce a mortgage and in that suit a decree was passed. E. P. No. 232 of 1970 was filed in that suit to execute the decree and the property was sold in auction on 1-111971, and the appellant herein was the auction-purchaser. The judgment-debtors filed E. A. No. 207 of 1972 under 0. 21, Rule 90. C. P. C. to set aside the sale, and that application was dismissed on 5-1-1974. The appeal preferred by the judgment-debtors. in A. A. 0. No. 51 of 1974, to this Court also failed, as the same was dismissed on 13-8-1974. In the meanwhile, a petition to adjudge the judgment-debtors insolvents was filed on 30-10-1971, and the order of adjudication itself was made on 17-12-1971. The Official Receiver, representing the estate of the insolvents, filed E. A. 2 of 1975 to set asid...
Tag this Judgment!R.S.K. Chandrasekaran Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ491
M.M Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of N.S. Ramaswami, J. dated 6th October, 1975 made in A.A.O. No. 182 of 1975. O.S. No. 145 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai was a suit to enforce a mortgage and in that suit a decree was passed. E.P. No. 232 of 1970 was filed in that suit to execute the decree and the property was sold in auction on 1st November, 1971, and the appellant herein was the auction purchaser. The judgment-debtor filed E.A. No. 207 of 1972 under Order 21, rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale, and that application was dismissed on 5th January, 1974. The appeal preferred by the judgment-debtors in A.A.O. No. 51 of 1974 to this Court also failed, as the same was dismissed on 13th August, 1974. In the meanwhile, a petition to adjudge the judgment-debtors insolvents was filed on 30th October, 1971, and the order of adjudication itself was made on 17th December, 1971. The Official Receiver, representin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »