Chennai Court February 1980 Judgments
M. Kandaswamy Vs. Sowrirajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ14
T. Sathiadev, J.1. This revision petition is filed under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and under Section 6(b) of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act XXV of 1955 against the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector and Presiding Officer of Tiruvarur in P. No. 138 of 1979 on 5th December, 1979. The tenant is the petitioner herein against whom a petition was filed under Section 3(4) (a) of Act XXV of 1955 for evicting him for non-payment of lease rent for Fasli 1388. The Authority held that this is a case where 'the tenant (intended) to drag the matter wilfully and there is no bonafide reason to grant any further time 'and hence it is ordered the tenant to be evicted since he has not paid the lease rent in-spite of opportunities given Mr. Ganesan, counsel for the petitioner, contends that the refusal to grant further time beyond the two adjournments given earlier, being unreasonable, the Authority had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and hence, this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. Southern Transports
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: [1981]128ITR576(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions have been referred to us for our decision under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held by the Tribunal that the provisions of s. 12B would not apply to the facts of the case 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not liable to tax on the capital gains of Rs. 95,158 arising out of the transfer of buses and Rs. 47,616 arising out of the route permits on the ground that under-statement of consideration has not been proved by the department ?' 2. The assessee in this case is a registered firm by name Messrs. Southern Transports, Madurai. During the assessment year 1961-62, the said firm sold 9 route buses and 2 spare buses to a new company known as Messrs. Southern & Rajamani Transports (P.). Ltd., Madurai, for a total consideration of Rs. 2,6...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajamani Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC451(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) dated 8th August, 1979, suo motu revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore. Admittedly the appellant herein collected a sum of Rs. 18,374 by way of sales tax whereas the transactions were not liable to sales tax under the law. In view of this, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer took action against the appellant under section 22(2) of the Act levied a penalty. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellant Assistant Commissioner and that officer by an order dated 27th May, 1976, which the learned counsel for the appellant himself admitted was not intelligible, set aside the levy of penalty. It is this order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that was revised by the Board of Revenue which set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the assessing authority. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that since ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivasalu Chettiar Vs. Parthasarathi Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Mad194
ORDER1. The defendant in O. S. No. 75 of 1978, District Munsif's Court, Mayuram, who succeeded in obtaining stay of further proceedings in the suit under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the learned District Munsif of Mayuram and lost before the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. Certain facts which would help to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties are not in dispute. It is admitted that the petitioner and the respondent entered into a lease agreement dated 21-12-1964 under which if the respondent wants the petitioner to vacate the premises, sufficient time had to been mid a provision for the nomination of four arbitrators to decide the market value of the superstructure was also made and the value so fixed should be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. Originally, the respondent instituted O. S. No. 397 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Mayuram, for the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee, High Court, Madras and ors. Vs. Mangalambal and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Mad200
ORDER1. This civil revision petition raises the question whether on the adjudication of the defendants in a suit for recovery of money as insolvents, the plaintiff is entitled to impleaded the official Assignee as either a necessary party or even as a proper party and to continue the suit. The first respondent instituted O. S. No. 77 of 1977, Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, against respondents 2 to 4 for the recovery of amounts due under a promissory note executed by them in favour of the first respondent. Respondents 2 to 4 are Subject to the provisions of this partners in Sundaram Fire Works. During the pendency of the suit, in I. P. No. 68 of 1972, respondents 2 to 4 were adjudicated as insolvents and their properties also vested with the Official Assignee, Madras. Claiming that the Official Assignee is a necessary party to the suit the first respondent filed I. A. No. 259 of 1978 in O. S. No. 77 of 1977 praying for an order impleading the Official Assignee as 4th defendant in the suit.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sitaraman and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ240
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In the State of Tamil Nadu, the Assistant Public Prosecutors, in the City of Madras are governed by the Madras General Service Rules and they form a separate Class; the Assistant Public Prosecutors in the mofussil are governed by the Madras General Subordinate Service Rules. Prior to the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there were two categories of Assistant Public Prosecutors. They were designated as Chief Assistant Public Prosecutors and Assistant State Prosecutors. Since the new Code of Criminal Procedure provided for appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors and no category as Chief Assistant State Prosecutors, in G.O. Ms. No. 977, Home, dated 31st May, 1977, the rules were amended to the effect that wherever 'Chief Assistant State Prosecutor' is referred to in the Madras General Service Rules, it shall be read as 'Assistant Public Prosecutor-I (Metropolitan)' and where ever 'Assistant State Prosecutor' is mentioned it should be r...
Tag this Judgment!J. Sreenivasalu Chettiar Vs. V. Parthasarathi Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ187
V. Ratnam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 75 of 1978, District Munsif's Court, Mayuram, who succeeded in obtaining stay of further proceedings in the suit under Section 54 of the Arbitration Act, 1940(hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the learned District Munsif of Mayuram and lost before the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram. is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. Certain facts which would help to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties are not in dispute. It is admitted that the petitioner and the respondent entered into a lease agreement dated 21st December, 1964, under which if the respondent wants the petitioner to vacate the premises, sufficient time had to be given and a provision for the nomination of four arbirators to decide the market value of the superstructure was also made and the value so fixed should be paid by the respondent to the petitioner. Originally, the respondent instituted O.S. No. 397 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif's C...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Prem Sankar Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1980
Reported in: [1984]55STC217(Mad)
Ismail, C.J. 1. This tax revision case is to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated 7th August, 1979. There is no dispute in the case that the relevant turnover of the respondent-assessee was exempted from sales tax. The only other question that was considered by the Tribunal was whether the respondent was liable to pay surcharge under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971. The Tribunal held that since the surcharge itself has to be calculated on the sales tax paid, when once the turnover is exempted from the payment of sales tax, surcharge cannot be levied. Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act states that every dealer who is liable to pay tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the sale or purchase of goods within the limits of the area in which the Act is in force shall, on and from the date of commencement of the Act, pay a surcharge on such tax at the rate ...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Iyer Vs. Kumar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Mad232; (1980)2MLJ318
ORDER1. This petition has been filed by the 8th respondent in the appeal to transpose him as the 3rd appellant in the second appeal.2. Plaintiffs 3 and 4 in O. S. 545 of 19M on the file of the District Munsif, Salem, are the appellants in the second appeal. The father of the appellants herein as the sole plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his one-third share in the suit properties. His case was that his grandfather Rajulier and his wife Kasturi Bai Ammal had executed a settlement deed Ex. Bi dated 1-3-1937, that as per that settlement, he is entitled to a third share in the suit properties, that Rajulier and his wife had executed another settlement deed, Ex. B11, dated 12-5-1944 giving the suit properties not only to the sons of the first wife of his father, Krishna Iyer, but also to the children of his second wife, the first defendant that Rajulier and his wife had no power to alter the provisions made in the earlier settlement deed, Ex. B1 dated 1-3-193...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Madhavan Vs. Sudarsan Chit Funds, a Unit of Sudarsan Trading Co., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ478
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. On a short ground this revision can be disposed of.The first respondent in the revision is a Chit Fund Company. In respect of Chit group : No. VE-1. Book No. 16 the second respondent became a subscriber on 7th July, 1969, 1 and at the auction held on 7th January, 1972 ! the second respondent became the successful bidder. In token of having received the consideration amount at the auction, the second respondent executed a promissory note and the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 joined the execution, of the promissory note as sureties. In addition, an item of property belonging to the third respondent was given as security.2. In respect of a later chit conducted by the first respondent, namely Group No. VB-1 Book No. 6, the petitioner herein became a subscriber on 8th July, 1969, and he was the successful bidder at the auction held on 8th December, 1969. For receipt of consideration and for payment of the balance under the chit he executed a promissory note and ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »