Chennai Court May 1980 Judgments
Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam and Charities Vs. Srila Sri Ambalawana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad42
1. These petitions have been filed by Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devastanam and Charities and relate to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Two grounds and 183 sq. ft. together with building, structures, etc., were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of providing additional accommodation to S. K. P. D. Boys High School run by the Devastanam. The relevant notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11-31961, and the declaration under Section 6 was made on 26-6-1966. The property is built up to the entire extent except for 745 sq. ft. approximately which remained as open space. The Land Acquisition Officer took the value of the property as Rs. 57,656 including solatium. In arriving at this value he took the monthly income from the property and capitalised it. For taking the capitalised value he took die market quotation of gilt-edged securities. The capitalised value was taken as Rs. 48,305 with the addition of solatium. The total compensation pa...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam and Charities by Its Secretary, N. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ42
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1.These petitions have been filed by Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam and Charities and relate to the, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. 2 grounds and 183 sq. ft. together with building, structures etc., were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of providing additional accommodation to S.K.P.D. Boys' High School run by the Devasthanam. The relevant notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11th March, 1964, and the declaration under Section 6 was made on 26th June, 1966. The property is built up to the entire extent except for 745 sq. ft. approximately which remained as open space. The Land Acquisition Officer took the value of the property at Rs. 57,656 including solatium. In arriving at this value he took the monthly income from the property and capitalised it. For taking the capitalised value, he took the market quotation of gilt-edged securities. The capitalised value was taken as Rs. 48,305 with the addition of s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Fried Krupp Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Mad)257; [1981]128ITR27(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at the instance of the commissioner of Income-tax, the following question has been referred : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was business connection between the Indian company and the non-resident foreign company within the meaning of section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. is a company incorporated in India. It wanted to install a grey iron foundry for manufacturing spinning casting. It entered into an agreement on 1st February, 1966, with Fried Krupp Industries of West Germany for the supply of the necessary equipments and for furnishing technical data regarding the foundry and also for the purpose of getting technicians so as to supervise the construction of the plant. The machinery was to be supplied from Europe on f.o.b. terms, North Sea Port, suitably and securely packed for ocean shipment and subsequent movement by rail and on road in ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhurvasalu Naidu Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1980
Reported in: 1980CriLJ911
ORDERMaheswaran, J.1. This application is one under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure invoking the inherent powers of the High Court to direct the Additional Special Judge, Dharmapuri to try C. C. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1978 together as one case and hold a joint trial of these three cases.2. The facts: The petitioner herein was a Forest Range Officer at Harur and is the first accused in the three cases, C. C. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1978, on the file of the Court of Additional Special Judge. Dharmapuri. The other accused are other Forest Officers and contractors who have taken licence for cutting trees from various coupes in the reserve forests in Harur and Athur, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, registered a case against the petitioner and fourteen other persons under Sections 120B, 379, 420 and 166 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation again...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Subramaina Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1980
Reported in: 1980CENCUS652D
ORDERMahaswaran, J.1. Appeal under Section 378 Sub-section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the acquittal of the aforesaid respondent (Accused) of an offence under Section 6(a) read with Section 9 (b) of the Central Excise Act and Rules 1A of the Central Excise Rules by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vellore in C.C.No. 355 of 1976 on his file.2. This appeal coming on for hearing on Monday the 14th day and Wednesday the 16th days of April, 1980 upon perusing the petition of Appeal any the Record of the evidence and proceedings before the said Lower Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Ilias Ali for the Central Government Prosecutor on behalf of the Appellant and of Mr. K.P. Jagadeesan, Advocate for the respondent (Accused) and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment:This appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore is against the judgment of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vell...
Tag this Judgment!Soodalai Ammal Vs. Sachidanandam Pillai and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ93
V. Ratnam, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961) as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In the course of the enquiry held by the Authorised Officer it was found that the petitioner was in possession of an extent of 24.651/2 ordinary acres equivalent to 22.007 standard acres as on 15th February) 1970 and that an extent of 1.963 standard acres was in surplus. The petitioner had also indicated that four items of properties viz. S. No. 143/5--0.77 cents; S. No. 125/4--1.06 acres; S. No. 180/2--0.12 cents and S. No. 1.91--0.411/2 cents in Kulamani village may be declared as surplus lands. The first respondent raised an objection with reference to the items sought to be surrendered by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has only a life interest and that he is entitled to the remainder in two items of properties viz., S.F. No. 125/4 and S.F. No. 143/5 and therefore, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›