Chennai Court December 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.
S. Balasubramaniam Vs. Gulab Jan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ354
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In this revision, the landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' is the petitioner. The respondent herein is the sub-tenant. The landlord filed a petition, H. R. C. No. 115 of 1976 on the file of the Rent Controller of Nilgiris, Gudalur, for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) for wilful default, Section 10(2)(ii)(a) for sub-letting and Section 14(1)(b) for demolition and reconstruction under the Act, against five respondents of whom the respondent herein was the fifth. Respondents 1 to 4 before the Rent Controller were the legal representatives of one Ahamed Hussain, who was the original tenant of the premises in question. Respondents 1 to 4 before the Rent Controller, the legal representatives of the original tenant and who assumed the character of tenants within the meaning of the Act, remained ex parte and did not contest the petition for eviction. The sub-tenant, t...
Nuwood Private Limited, Madras Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT184(Mad)
1. The petitioner, Nuwood Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture and sale of duplicating machines under the collaboration agreement with Boger Duplomat Apparate KG, West Germany. The duplicating machines manufactured by the petitioner are classified as office equipments for the purposes of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the petitioner submitted a price list for the equipment manufactured by it for the purpose of computation of excise duty payable thereon. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras by his order dated 25-9-1975 provisionally approved the price list submitted by the petitioner and allowed clearance of the manufactured goods on payment of excise duty on the basis of the price list provisionally approved. Thereafter, on 18-12-1975 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras issued proceedings C-V/33, D/17-3-75. By the said proceedings, the Assistant Collector fixed the val...
M.V. Chockalingam Pillai and ors. Vs. Alamelu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Mad29
Ramanujam, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment of Ismail J., (as he then was) in A. S. No. 369 of 1970, on the file of this Court, which arose out of the suit 0. S. No, 220 of 1967, on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore.2. The plaintiff filed that suit against her brother the first defendant in the suit, for partition and separate possession of her alleged one fourth share in the suit properties. The suit properties originally belonged to Venkatachalam Pillai who died in the year 1942, leaving behind him his wife Achikannu Animal a son Chockalingarn the first defendant and a daughter the plaintiff. Achikannu Animal died in the year 1963. The plaintiff who is sister of Chockalingam, has claimed a one-fourth share in the suit properties on the basis that on the death of Venkatachala in 1942, her mother Achikannu Animal became entitled to a half share in the suit properties that as a result of the coming into force of Central Act XXX of 1956, the said ha...
A.R. Krishnamurthy and A.R. Rajagopalan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Mad)320; [1982]133ITR922(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee, a body of individuals, filed a return for the assessment year 1971-72, admitting a total income of Rs. 43,953 from business and other sources. During the curse of the assessment proceedings, the ITO noticed that the assessee had purchased an extent of 11.23 acres of land for Rs. 12,700 on October 17, 1966, and another extent of 3.32 acres on May 31, 1966, for a sum of Rs. 14,562 and thus they owned an extent of 14.55 acres costing about Rs. 27,260. He further noticed that by what is styled an instrument of lease-cum-licence, dated 10th September, 1970, they granted a mining lease in favour of M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries (Madras) Private Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the company'), an allied concern of the assessee. Under the document, the lessee had to pay a premium or salami of Rs. 5 lakhs in addition to the payment of a royalty calculated at Rs. 12 per 100 cubic feet of clay extracted by the lessee, subject to a minimum royalty of Rs. 60,000 per y...
Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. A. Vijayakumar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1980
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ9Mad
1. The writ petition is for certiorari to quash the award of the Additional Labour Court, Madras rendered in I.D. No. 256 of 1975. The dispute in the award relates to the non-employment of the first respondent, an Engineering Graduate, who was working as a development officer of the petitioner-company due to discharge simpliciter as he was un-co-operative in his work, and irregular in his attendance. As a result of this, he lost the confidence of the management. Without giving an opportunity to the first respondent to defend, these allegations of un-co-operative nature and irregularity in attendance, which are all false, and in the guise of discharge he was punished by way of dismissal without any enquiry as required under law. The writ petitioner-management contended that the first respondent was not a workman within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He belonged to the administrative or managerial cadre, though a technical pers...
K. Venkataramani Vs. S. Aravamuthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Mad36
ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner. The respondents-landlords filed apetition in R. C. 0. P. No. 7 of -1979 for an order of eviction against the petitioner under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) According to the case of the respondents the property in the occupation of the petitioner belonged to the joint family of respondents I to 3, their father and brother one deceased Gopalan. In 19o,the father renounced the world and became an ascetic and also released his share in the property in favour of his sons, the respondents 1 to 3 herein and Gopalan. Gopalan, the brother of respondents 1 to 3 and husband of the fourth respondent and father of respondents 5 and 6, died subsequently and the respondents became the owners of the property in question. The petitioner, according to the case of the respondents, became a tenant in respect of this property throu...
M.V.S. Muthuvel Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Kovilpatti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ168
G. Ramanujam, J.1. In a proceeding under Section 9(2) of Tamil Nadu Act LVIII of 1961(hereinafter called the Act), the petitioner was held to have a surplus of 9.68 acres. There was a draft statement under Section 10(1) of the Act. In his objection under Section 10(2) of the Act, the petitioner wanted exclusion under Section 73(vii) of three survey numbers from his holding on the ground that the said extent comprised of a thope. The authorised officer after making a local inspection held that there is no thope and therefore the lands for which exemption is claimed by the petitioner cannot be excluded from his holding. The petitioner also objected to the draft statement under Section 10(1) on the ground that some lands which have been encumbered by him have to be excluded from his holding. This contention also was not accepted by the authorised officer. As against this final statement under Section 10(5) the petitioner filed an appeal before the Land Tribunal. Before the Land Tribunal, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›