Chennai Court August 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.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts and Executive Staff Union, by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1980
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ246Mad
ORDER1. The facts which are very simple, but unfortunately have given rise to lot of passion in this case, are as under : The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts Subordinates Union was registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act of 1926 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year 1958. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board represented by its Secretary (respondent) accepted the Code of Discipline by its letter dated 26-10-1965 stating that the Madras State Electricity Board has decided to accept the Code of Discipline in principle. It may be mentioned that the Code of Discipline itself was evolved at the Indian Labour Conference held in Nainital in May, 1958. That came into force on 1st June, 1958. Topic 5 deals with the recognition of unions, as the provisions in regard to recognition of unions under the Trade Unions Act were not brought into force. One of the pertinent clauses which requires to be noted is only unions which observed the Code of Discipline would be entitl...
Parasurama Mudaliar and ors. Vs. B. Ramanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad33
ORDER1. The defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O. S. No. 100 of 1968, Sub Court, Tirupattur, are the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondents herein are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff P. Balakrishnan in that suit. O. S, No. 100 of 1968 was instituted by the said Balakrishnan against the petitioners who were impleaded as defendants 1, 3 and 4 and one Ramaswami Mudaliar, another son of the first petitioner and who was impleaded as the second defendant therein on the basis of the promissory notes dated 20-1-1966 and 17-7-1966 executed by the first petitioner and Ramaswami Mudaliar. Pending suit, Balakrishnan died and the respondents were impleaded as his legal representatives. On 7-2-1972, they obtained a decree against the Petitioners and Ramaswami Mudaliar in the following terms -1. That the defendants 1 and 2 personally and that the defendants 1 to 4 out of the joint family properties in their hands do pay to the 2 to 4 plaintiffs the sum of Rupees 7689-16...
E.R. Kothandaraman Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1980
Reported in: [1981]129ITR450(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee had owned an extent of 7.23 acres of land in Jaffarkhanpet, Kodambakkam, Madras. They were acquired by the State Government in 1964. After the issue of notice under s. 9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, possession of the lands was taken by the Government on March 27, 1964, and the property had vested in the Government as and from that date. The award by the Land Acquisition Officer under s. 11 of the Act was made on May 15, 1964, in which a sum of Rs. 12,755.75 was awarded as compensation for the lands acquired. The assessee received the compensation under protest and required the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter under s. 18 to the civil court for determination of the amount of compensation payable to him. When this reference was pending before the learned subordinate judge of Chingleput, the assessee filed his returns for the assessement years 1965-66 to 1969-70 under the W. T Act showing a net wealth below the taxable limit. The assessee had...
P. Narayanaswamy Vs. the Director of School Education
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ255
ORDERM.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J., dated 30th August, 1976, dismissing W P No. 2638 of 1976 filed by the appellant herein. While the appellant was the Headmaster of a school he was arrested for certain offences, including one under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. Consequent on his arrest, he was suspended. On 12th September, 1967 he was convicted, by the Sessions Judge, and on 11th July, 1970, based on his conviction, he was dismissed. On 21st April, 1971, on appeal his conviction relating to the offence under Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, was confirmed. However, he was released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Consequent on the judgment of the appellate Court the appellant was also reinstated.2. Thereafter action was taken under Rule 154 of the Tamil Nadu Educational Rules. A show cause notice was issued by the Director of School Education (respondent herein) to the appellant, drawing his attention to the fact of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. C.R. Narayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1980
Reported in: [1984]146ITR310(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessees is this income-tax reference are a firm of architects with three parters. They practice in this country as consulting architects and engineers. They also have a few clients abroad. For carrying on their profession on this scale, they maintain an establishment. They incur expenses in travel. They have other overheads to meet. In 1969, the assessees took up a contract work in Ceylon for a foreign company. The project was to design and erect a spinning and weaving mill at Colombo. This entailed travel expenses to the extent of Rs. 44,970. 2. In connection with their firm's assessment to income-tax for the relevant assessment year 1972-73 the assessees claimed that they were entitled not only to a deduction of the actual travelling expenses to and from Ceylon in the sum of Rs. 44,970 but also to an extra allowance under s. 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Section 35B grants what its marginal note describes as an 'export markets development allowance'. Thi...
D. Seshayyamma Guru Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1980
Reported in: [1985]156ITR820(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The question for our decision in this tax case is : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the lands sold by the assessee are not entitled to exemption under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as agricultural lands ?' 2. The assessee owned a parcel of land of the extent of 42.5 acres in Madras city. He sold the land in September, 1968, or a consideration of Rs. 4,18,200. The Income-tax Officer regarded this item of land as a 'capital asset' of the assessee and brought to tax the gains resulting from it sale. This assessment was confirmed in appeal first by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and later by the Madras Tribunal. The objection of the assessee to the assessment was that the land sold by him was agricultural land and, hence, it stood excluded from 'capital assets' chargeable to tax under the Act. He relied on the definition of the expression 'capital asset' in section ...
N. Manoharan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad147
Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant in the writ appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition who is the same person was a Warder, Grade II in the Central Prison, Madras, during the period from 15-9-1971 till 10-3-1978. The State Government by G. 0. Ms. No. 1202 Public (Law and Order-A) dated 21-5-1977 appointed a commission of enquiry under Sec. 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 to enquire into the incidents of beating and ill-treatment that is alleged to have taken place in the Central Prison, Madras, during February 1976. The said Commission of Enquiry submitted its report to the first respondent on 26-9-1977. Paras 4.56 and 7.26 of the said report deal with the appellant's conduct as Warder and the Commission of Enquiry gives the following findings therein as regards the appellant's conduct :Consequently, J have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Thiru Manoharan took part in the beating of the detenus on the night of 2nd February. 1976 in the ninth block. Under these ...
N. Manoharan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ368
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant in the writ appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition who is the same person was a Warder, Grade II in the Central Prison, Madras, during the period from 15th September, 1971, till 10th March, 1978. The State Government by G O. Ms. No. 202, Public (Law and Order-A), dated 21st May, 1977, appointed a Commission of Enquiry under Section 3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952, to enquire into the incidents of beating and ill-treatment that is alleged to have taken place in the Central Prison, Madras, during February, 1976. The said Commission of Enquiry submitted its report to the first respondent on 26th September, 1977 Paragraphs 4(56) and 7(26) of the said report deal with the appellant's conduct as Warder and Commission of Enquiry gives the following findings therein as regards the appellant's conduct:Consequently, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that Thiru Manoharan took part in the beating of the detenus on the night of 2...
Kuppana Chettiar and anr. Vs. K. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ136
ORDERM.M. Ismail, C.J.1. These two civil revision petitions, whose facts are similar, have come up before us on a reference made by Natarajan, J., in view of the conflict between the decision of Gokulakrishnan, J., in Mahalinga Voikkaran v. Sellithammal (1972) 2 M.L.J. 17 : : (1972)2MLJ17 . and that of Mohan, J. in Sivasankara Devarayar v. Prakash (Minor) and Anr. C.R.P. Nos. 991 and 992 of 1979, Order dated 29th June, 1979. The petitioners in each of these cases are cultivating tenants against whom orders of eviction have been passed by the Authorised Officer consequent on their failure to deposit the arrears of rent as ordered to be paid by them within the stipulated time. C.R.P. No. 2113 of 1979 arises out of C.T.P. No. 44 of 1978 on the file of the Authorised Officer, Erode, while C.R.P. No. 2142 of 1979 arises out of C.T.P. No. 43 of 1978 on the file of the officer.2. The respondent, in G.R.P. No. 2113 of 1979, who is the landlord, filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner...
The Tirunelveli Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Limi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ155
V. Ratnam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the order of eviction passed by the authorities below, on an application under Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, as amended by Act XXIII of 1973(hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the respondent herein which is the union of The South India Bank Employees. According to the respondent, the building in question was purchased by the union from one Subramania Pillai on 24th May, 1974 and even at that time, the petitioner was in occupation of the building as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 60 payable on or before the 5th of every succeeding month. Claiming that the building in question is a non-residential one and that the union has no building of its own to house its office to conduct the meetings and carry on the business of the union, the respondent filed an application under Section 10(3)(a) (iii) of the Act f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »