Chennai Court June 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.
The Executive Officer, Sree Arthanareeswarar Devasthanam Vs. S.N. Bala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ424
S. Mohan, J.1. The defendant, The Executive Officer, Sri Arthanareeswarar and Kailasanathar Devasthanams, Tiruchengode, is the appellant before me. The second appeal arises out of O.S. No. 245 of 1971 in which the respondents/plaintiffs, who are the hereditary Archakas and Sthanikas of the temples above named and who are performing the pooja according to turns, filed a representative suit praying for rendition of accounts of the collections made by the defendant by the issue of tickets for various items in the temples mentioned in the plaint. There was also a prayer for payment of half share in the collections as well as half share in the Archanai and Deeparathanai collections from January, 1971.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the emoluments of the Archakas and Sthanikas consist of the fee paid by the worshippers for performing (1) Archanais, (2) Deeparathanais, (3) Kattalai and (4) other gifts given at the time of worship. They are not separately paid any remuneration from the t...
V. Parthasarathi Vs. Chinnappayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ123
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Venugopal, J., dated 22nd June, 1979, allowing A. A. O. No. 472 of 1978. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 855 of 1972 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. An ex parte decree was passed against the respondents herein on 25th November, 1975. The respondents thereafter filed I. A. No. 27441 of 1975 to set aside the ex parte decree. On 13th July, 1976, the Court passed the following order;Petition allowed on condition that the petitioners deposit Rs. 2,000 towards the cost of the suit on or before 27th July, 1976 failing which the petition shall stand dismissed. Call on 28th July, 1976.Thereafter, on 7th December, 1976 the Court passed the following order:Condition not complied with. Petition dismissed.2. Against the order dated 7th December, 1976 the respondents filed the A.A.O. in question. One of the points urged before the learned Judge by the appellant herein was that the appeal was barred by limitat...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Manjushree Plantations Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Mad)70; [1980]125ITR150(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company. In making the assessments for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1971-72, the ITO disallowed certain amounts in each year representing leave allowance paid in cash to certain of its employees. The view of the ITO was that these payments would either amount to salary or benefit or perquisite within the meaning of s. 40(c)(iii) or the substituted s. 40(a)(v), as the case may be. This view was confirmed by the AAC. But, on further appeal, the Tribunal held that the cash amounts paid as leave allowance were neither salary, nor benefit or amenity or perquisite, and as such, the disallowance was improper. Though the Tribunal had considered the question whether the leave allowance would be salary, or benefit or amenity or perquisite, the revenue sought a reference only on the question whether the leave allowance was not a perquisite, and the two questions that are referred to us read as follows: For the assessment year 1986-69: 'Whether,...
Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Limited by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1980
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ140
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The common question in all these second appeals is whether the suits out of which they arise, are maintainable. The Courts below held that they were maintainable. The corretnesa of their decision is disputed by the appellant who was the defendant in all the suits.2. Four suits figure in this controversy. The plaintif in each suit was an employee of a Cooperative Society called the Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Limited. Each of them was in charge of a godown of the Society storing foodgrains. On the ground that there were shortages in the stock, each of the godown keepers was dismissed by the Society after a domestic inquiry. Each of them filed a suit against the Society for a declaration that his dismissal was wrongful.3. The Society resisted the suits on the ground, among others that they were not maintainable. The Courts below negatived this contention, proceeded on the merits of the case and decreed the suits as prayed for.4. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›