Chennai Court October 1981 Judgments
Everest Pictures Circuit, Salem Vs. S. Karuppannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad244; (1982)1MLJ100
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and final order of the learned District Judge of Salem passed in C. M. A. No. 17 of 1981, which itself is an order in the civil miscellaneous appeal arising from the judgment of the learned District Munsif of Salem in O. S. No. 2136 of 1979 directing the return of the plaint in O. S. 2136 of 1979 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Salem for presentation to the proper court. The respondent herein who is the plaintiff in O. S. 2136 of 1979, is a film distributor. The negative right of the Tamil talkie film called 'Petralthan Pillaya' was sold to one Mrs. Saraswathi who was doing the business under the name and style of Mrs. Saraswathi Film Circuit. She had every right to deal with the distribution of the said film .On 12 26-10-1978, the said Saraswathi and the respondent herein (the plaintiff in the suit) entered into an agreement by which she leased the right to exhibit the said film in the Revenue districts ...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Palayyan Vs. Chandramohan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ160
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the Judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram rendered in S.C.S. No. 90 of 1978. The plaintiff who is a chit foreman had filed the above suit alleging that the defendant had paid five instalments and since the chit was discontinued the defendant is entitled to the refund of the amount paid by him, that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 600 for marriage expenses and promised to pay the same, after adjusting the chit subscription from the amount borrowed by him. that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 373.95. In the suit the defendant filed a counterclaim for Rs. 750 on the ground that he paid six instalments amounting to Rs. 750. The learned District Munsif after taking evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 593.75 towards refund of the instalments paid to the plaintiff by way of chit subscription. The learned District Munsif als...
Tag this Judgment!R. Srinivasan Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ135Mad
Venugopal, J.1. The appellant while working as Income-tax Officer (Estate Duty) at Madurai, stayed in Sri Ranga Lodge, an annexe to the New College House; Madurai, from 26th July 1973. He paid the rent till 31st July, 1973. He did not pay the rent from 1st August, 1973 to 3rd September, 1976, the entire period of his stay in Sri Ranga Lodge on 10th November, 1976, a cheque for Rs. 6,000 was sent towards rent by the appellant's brother. On 1st December, 1976 stamped receipt was issued by the Lodge showing payment of rent by the appellant for the entire period of his occupation. On 27th January, 1978, charge was framed against the appellant that he failed to pay rent payable for the period of his occupation in spite of repeated demands from the Management and Hotel staff and has abused his official position and acted in a manner unbecoming of public servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(1) (iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellant submitted an explanation that...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nainsukdas Baldeodas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad323; (1982)1MLJ401
1. This is an appeal against the order in Appeal. No, 941 of 1980 in C. S. No. 333 of 1978,. dismissing the application for stay of the suit under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act.2. The summons in the suit was served on the defendant on I8-9-1979 the summons stated that if the defendant intended to defend the suit, he must cause an appearance to be entered on his behalf and file in the court a written statement stating the grounds of his defence within two weeks after service of this summons upon the defendant in which case the suit will be entered in the general list of causes, The written statement should, therefore, have been filed on or before 2-10-79. The defendant neither entered appearance nor filed any written statement within the Period Prescribed under the sunstones, but it filed a vakalat in the suit along with Appln. No- 941 of 1900 on 16-11-1979 pra7fmg for stay of the suit on the ground that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties in respect of the claim in the...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Selvakumar Timber Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1981
Reported in: [1984]57STC69(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. These two revisions filed by the State Government arise from one and the same proceedings, namely, penalty proceedings, taken by the assessing authority against the assessee for having collected sales tax from the customers on second sales of timber and bamboo. Under entry 84 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, bamboo and timber the taxable only at the stage of first sale in the State. It follows, therefore, that not only are they not taxable at the stage of second sale but the person who effects the second sale is disentitled from collecting sales tax from the purchasers. Under section 22(1) of the Act, no person who is a registered dealer shall collect any amount by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax under the Act. It is further provided that no registered dealer shall make any such collection except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is quite clear that where a dealer effec...
Tag this Judgment!M. Khasim Khaleali Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Acc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ273
Singaravelu, J.1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. The landlord filed an application under Section 4 of XVIII of 1960 for the fixation of fair rent in respect of a non-residential building. The respondent-tenant is the State of Madras, represented by the Accommodation Controller.2. The landlord in his petition wanted a rent of Rs. 32,500 to be fixed as the fair rent for the building. This application was resisted by the respondent and after recording evidence the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 28,000 per month. Aggrieved by this order, both parties preferred appeals, the landlord filing an appeal in H.R.A. No. 521 of 1978 and the tenant preferring an appeal in H. R.A. No. 483 of 1978. Unfortunately, both appeals were lying before different Courts and this was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, by either party. Therefore, the two appeals were heard separately by different Authorities and judgments were rendered. In the appeal by the tenant in H.R.A...
Tag this Judgment!R. Srinivasan Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Its Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ381
P. Venugopal, J.1. The appellant while working as Income-tax Officer (Estate Duty) at Madurai, stayed in Sri Ranga Lodge, an annexe to the New Coviege House, Madurai, from 26th July, 1973. He paid the rent till 3]|stf JJjuly, 1973. He did not pay the rent from 1st August, 1973 to 3rd September, 1976, the entire period of his stay in Sri Ranga Lodge. On 10th November, 1976, a cheque for Rs. 6,000 was sent towards rent by the appellant's brother. On 1st December, 1976 stamped receipt was issued by the Lodge showing payment of rent by the appellant for the entire period of his occupation. On 27th January, 1978, charge was framed against the appellant that he failed to pay rent payable for the period of his occupation in spite of repeated demands from the Management and Hotel staff and has abused his official position and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellant submitted an explan...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kasim Khaleeli Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad168
ORDER1. The landlord in the revision petitioner. The landlord filed an application under S. 4 of Act 18 of 1960 for the fixation of fair rent in respect of a non-residential building. The respondent tenant is the State of Madras, represented by the Accommodation Controllers. 2. The landlord in his petition wanted a rent of Rs. 32,500 to be fixed as the fair rent for the building. This application was resisted by the respondent and after recording evidence the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.28,000 per month. Aggrieved by this order, both parties preferred appeals, the landlord filing an appeal in H.R.A. No. 483 of 1978. Unfortunately, both the appeals were lying before different Courts and this was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority by either party. Therefore, the two appeals were heard separately by different authorities and judgments were rendered. In the appeal filed by the tenant in H.R.A. No. 483 of 1978, the fair rent was confirmed at Rs. 28,000 per mo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Motor and General Insuranc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1981
Reported in: (1983)31CTR(Mad)350; [1983]140ITR451(Mad)
BALASUBRAHMANYAN J. - The question of law for our decision in these income-tax reference has to do with a particular aspect of computation of the profits of a general insurance business. The I.T. Act, 1961, provides for special rules of computation of profits of general insurance business. The rules are laid down in Part B or the First Schedule to the Act. Rule 5 takes as the basis of computation the figures of the balance of profits as of Insurance. Rule 5, however, proceeds to law down certain special provisions of deductions from the figure of the balance of profits shown in the annual accounts. The special provisions in r. 5 only means that the ITO cannot tinker with the figure found in the assessee annual accounts except to the extend allowed by cls. (a) to (c) of r. 5 of the First Schedule.The assessee in these cases is a general insurance company. It had considerable investment in joint stock company shares and the like. They were being held by the assessee over a period of time...
Tag this Judgment!Kancheepuram Municipality Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad194
ORDER1. The petitioner is Kancheepuram Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, The petitioner municipality applied for the grant of a 'No objection certificate, for conversion of an already existing building Arignar Anna Kalai Arangam into a permanent cinema theatre in Kancheepuram town. The said application was made to the third respondent. Two dates are mentioned in the order of the third respondent with reference to the making of the application. One is 4-7-1978 and the other is 16-12-1978. The notice required under R. 35A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1957, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, with reference to the first application was published on the notice board of the Collectorate on 25-7-1978 and on the notice board of the petitioner municipality on 26-7-1978. With reference to the second application records disclose that the publication of the notice were effected on 28-121978. The Superintendent of police, Chengalpattu (West), did not have any objecti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »