Chennai Court January 1981 Judgments
M. Anbalagam Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1179
ORDER1. Anbalagam, the revision petitioner, was convicted of offences punishable under Section 29 of the Indian Telegraph Act and under Section 419 and Section 171C read with S. 171F of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under each charge by the learned Fifth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Madras Division, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 29 of the Indian Telegraph Act, but confirmed the convictions and sentences imposed in respect of other offences. The revision petitioner challenges the convictions and the sentences. 2. The facts : Mrs. Devatha Sampat-kumar, Phonogram Clerk, Central Telegraph Office, Madras, received an ordinary phonogram message on 7-1-1976 at about 9-20 p.m. That message from phone No. 75715 was intended for one Kannusami of Communist Party of India at Vedaranyam. The message was purported to be from one Kalyanasundaram and the content of the message was to 'boycott el...
Tag this Judgment!R. Mohmood and anr. Vs. Ebrahim SaifuddIn and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad3
ORDER1. The writ petition is for certiorari to quash the proceedings in M. P. No. 2329 of 1978 in E. P. 485 of 1978 dated 33-7-1979 an the file of the Rent Controller, (6th Judge. Small Cause Court). Madras.2. The facts are briefly as under -the first respondent was a tenant of the father of the first petitioner, H. Y. Mahmood, in respect of a portion privately marked as No. 5-B Sembudoss St.. Madras 1. comprised in Municipal No. 21 Errabalu Chetti St., Madras 1. since renumbered as No. 12 Errabalu Chetti St., Madras 1. During his lifetime, he filed H. R. C. No. 4254 of 1962 against the first respondent for eviction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also sub-letting of the premises to the second respondent, who has also been impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The matter was contested by both the respondents and ultimately an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller ...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Santhanam Iyer Vs. V.S. Sundra Hammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad244
1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in 0. S. No. 50 of 1975 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nagaanattinam. The suit was for declaration that the Waintiff was the hereditary trustee of Sri Meenakshisundareswataswami temple, Vadavur village and for recovery of possession of the temple and its properties. It was not in dispute that the temple is a public temple coming within the jurisdiction of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department. The ancestors of the plaintiff and the defendant's husband originally founded the temple. The office of trusteeship was last held by one V. R. Subramania Iver the elder brother of the plaintiff and husband of the defendant. The said Subramania Iver died in or about 1964. On his death, his wife, the defendant assumed management of the Properties. At that time the plaintiff was engaged in business in Delhi and other Places of northern India. As the Plaintiff had come back to the village he wanted the defendant to han...
Tag this Judgment!Bagiammal Vs. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1981
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ253
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The question in this revision is whether the Court below acted right in allowing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and excusing the delay, a matter of 79 days or so. The delay involved was in the filing of an application for setting aside an ex parte decree. The defendants who applied for this relief were a husband and wife. Their explanation for the delay was that the husband was ill with heart disease and also jaundice, and was taking treatment away from home Although the plaintiff opposed the application under Section 5, there was not a word of effective denial in his counter affidavit either of the illness alleged or its treatment. All that was urged by the plaintiff was that the allegations of illness were 'not proper' and were 'unbelievable' as though he was reviewing those allegations and not traversing them. In the event the learned Judge disposed of the matter thus:The ill health pleaded in the petition seems to be not unbeliev...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Thanthi Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1981
Reported in: (1981)23CTR(Mad)155; [1982]137ITR735(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. One Sri S. B. Adityan was carrying on the business of printing and publishing the Tamil daily newspaper 'Dina Thanthi' as sole proprietor thereof since 1942. On March 1, 1954, he executed a deed of declaration of trust whereby he constituted a trust called 'Thanthi Trust' and transferred thereto the property, namely, the business of the newspaper 'Dina Thanthi' as a going concern with all its assets and liabilities. In clause 2 of the trust deed the purposes for which the trust was constituted were mentioned as (a) to establish the Dina Thanthi or Daily Thanthi as an organ of educated public opinion for the Tamil reading public, (b) to disseminate news and to bentilate opinion upon all matters of public interest through the said newspaper, and (c) to maintain the said newspaper and its press in an efficient condition devoting the surplus income of the said newspaper and its press after defraying all expenses, in improving and enlarging the said newspaper and its servic...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Manufacturers Vs. the Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1981
Reported in: [1983]54STC88(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. The point that is raised in this appeal is whether the stainless steel wires sold by the appellant herein would come under item 109 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or under item 4(xv) of the Second Schedule to that Act. Item 109 of the First Schedule reads : 'Articles made of stainless steel.' 2. Item 4(xv) of the Second Schedule reads : 'Wire rods and wires - rolled, drawn, galvanised, aluminised, tinned or coated such as by copper.' 3. Before item 4(xv) of the Second Schedule can apply, the wires in the present case must be of iron and steel. Certainly item 4(xv) of the Second Schedule cannot apply. Hence, the only item that will apply to the present case is item 109 of the First Schedule, because stainless steel wire is certainly an article made of stainless steel. 4. Consequently, the conclusion of the Board of Revenue cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Krishnamurthi Iyer Vs. S. Govindaraja Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ421
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. In this revision by the landlord of a building in Kumbakonam town, the only point for consideration is whether the Rent Controller was justified in holding that the default in payment of rent by the tenant was not wilful, since at the material time, he was afflicted by a heart condition and had to take his treatment in Madras.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the landlord in this revision submitted, in the first place, that there was no evidence apart from that of the tenant himself, that he was suffering from a heart ailment. Learned Counsel further submitted, that although the tenant had stated that he was taking treatment for his heart condition in a nursing home at Madras, that did not prevent him from making a flying visit to Kumbakonam and from paying the, rent. Learned Counsel accordingly submitted that the Rent Controller and the appellate authority ought not to have drawn the inference that the tenant was suffering from a heart disease and tha...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of Travancore Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1981
Reported in: (1981)ILLJ393Mad
ORDER1. The second respondent was employed as a Head Cashier in the Nagercoil branch of the petitioner at the relevant point of time. On 11th May, 1976, the petitioner issued a memo to the second respondent, which runs as follows : 'We understand that you have been indulging in a series of monetary transactions with Shri P. Muthiah Managing Director of Messrs. Tamil Nadu Bucket Industries, Pvt. Limited and that you were conducting a chit in the name of your wife and Mrs. Karpagavally Ammal, wife of Shri P. Muthiah and a guarantor to our advance to the unit, was also a subscriber to the same. Arising out of this, you resorted to legal action against the parties, one for eviction under the rent control Act and another for recovery of Rs. 30,200. (2) Your reference is invited to the following aspects mentioned in the relative judgments received : (i) The defendant has stated in the rent control petition that you were helping the party to obtain loans from banks and Government for his bu...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Products Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC187(Mad)
Ismail, C.J. 1. The only question that the Tribunal had to decide was whether absorbent cotton wool produced by the petitioner herein could be classified under the heading 'surgical dressing' under item 95 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or it would come under item 2 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, being a declared goods. Item 95 of the First Schedule reads as follows : 'Drugs, patent or proprietary medicines as defined in section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act XXIII of 1940), or medicinal mixtures or compounds, the components of which have not already suffered tax, but excluding Arishtams or Asavas and including surgical dressing.' 2. Item 2 of the Second Schedule reads as under : 'Cotton, that is to say, all kinds of cotton (indigenous or imported) in its unmanufactured state whether ginned or unginned, baled, pressed or otherwise, but excluding cotton waste.' 3. It can be immediately seen...
Tag this Judgment!V. Krishnan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC183(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This tax revision case has been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Madurai, dated 13th May, 1980, made in M.T.A. No. 680 of 1979. The assessee is a manufacturer of appalams under the name and style of 'Ammami Appalam'. The contention that was taken before the authorities and the Tribunal was that the sale of the appalams does not attract levy of tax at 8 per cent under item 103 of the First Schedule and that it should be taxed only at multi-point rate. Item 103(viii) of the First Schedule reads as follows : 'Foods including preparations of vegetables, fruits, milk, cereals, flour, starch, birds eggs, meat and meat offals, animal blood, fish crustaceans and molluses which - (a) are sold under any brand name registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (Central Act 43 of 1958); and (b) do not fall under item 24.' Item 24 relates to 'milk foods (excluding milk but including milk powder)'. 2. It is not in dispute...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »