Chennai Court December 1981 Judgments
S.K. Munuswami Mudaliar Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ343
ORDERV. Sethuraman, J.1. The land owner is the petitioner in this revision. The petition has been filed to revise the order of the Land Ceiling Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Chingleput, passed in C.M.A. No. 199 of 1978. The petitioner held 35.46 ordinary acres equivalent to 16.28 standard acres as on 15th February, 1970. Out of this holding, an extent of 2.78 ordinary acres equivalent to 0.92 standard acre in Section No. 8112 in Amirthaman-galam village was exempted under Section 73(8) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Section 73(8) of the Act provides for exemption where any land is used exclusively for growing fual trees on the date of the commencement of the Act. After taking into account the exemption, the petitioner's holding was 15.33 standard acres and since the surplus was within the ceiling limit, further action was dropped by the authorities.2. It was subsequently found on inspection that on the exempted extent of 2.78 ord...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Saleha Vs. Syed Nooruddin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ340
M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. The revision petition has been filed by the respondent in H.R.A. No. 1470 of 1979, who is the landlord against the order, dated 22nd August, 1980, setting aside the order of eviction passed in H.R.C. No. 2120 of 1978 by the then X Court of Small Causes, Madras, dated 23rd June, 1979.2. The landlord filed an eviction petition under Sections 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 alleging that the tenant has without the written consent and knowledge of the landlord and contrary to the terms of the lease demised the premises to a sub-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 125, even though the letting in favour of the respondent-main-tenant was on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 and for having effected unauthorised construction and additions without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. In H.R.C. No. 2120 of 1978. the alleged sub-tenant has not been impleaded by the landlord. The Rent Controller rejected the ground of acts of waste and ordered evic...
Tag this Judgment!Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. V.R. Badhrunnissa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ437
T.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlady filed the petition for eviction in respect of a non-residential building under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) on the ground of requirement for the occupation of her husband. The tenant contended that the requirement is not bona fide, and that in any event, the landlady is not entitled to file a petition before the expiry of the lease period agreed to between the parties. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the tenant and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction. Hence the revision by the tenant.2. The premises in question is a multi-storeyed building consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor at North Beach Road near the Madras Harbour. The tenant is M|s. Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co., Ltd. The building in question originally belonged to South India Flour Mills Ltd., Madras through whom the tenant was inducted ...
Tag this Judgment!Pioneer Kumaraswamy College, Represented by Its Correspondent, the Chi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ119
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a revision petition in which an interesting point is imbedded relating to the liability of the Government regarding the satisfaction of a decree that had been passed and become final against the administration of the College, which had been taken over by it when the suit had become the subject-matter of an execution petition.2. In E.P. No. 591 of 1979 in O.S. No. 519 of 1974 on the file of the Court of learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee, an order was passed on 10th September, 1980 by the learned Principal District Munsif, that inasmuch as the college was the defendant, the contentions of the care-taker could not be upheld as the creditor is entitled for the decree amount and defendant-college cannot refuse to pay the amount and throw the liability from hither and thither. In the result, the petition for attachment and selling of the movable properties of the college was allowed and attachment was ordered by 7th October, 1980.3. In the counter th...
Tag this Judgment!Chellammal Vs. R.T. Seethalakshmiammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ323
V. Sethuraman, J.1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge in Madurai in E.A. No. 1198 of 1979, which was an application filed on behalf of the third defendant in O.S. No. 379 of 1976, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff filed the suit against her for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,450 due on a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 5,000. The third defendant claimed that she was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, XL of 1979. This Act came into force on the 15th of July, 1979. It was published in the Official Gazette on 13th June, 1979. By Section 21 of the said Act, it was provided that where, in execution of any decree, any immovable property in which a debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act had an interest, had been sold on or after the 14th day of July, 1978, then notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963, and notwithstanding that the sale had been confirmed, any judgment-debtor ...
Tag this Judgment!Chellammal Vs. R.T. Seethalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad100
ORDER1. This civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai in E. A. 1198 of 1979, which was an application filed on behalf of the third defendant in O. S. 379 of 1976, under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff filed the suit against her for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7450 due on a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 5000. The third defendant claimed that she was entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 40 of 1979. The Act came into force on the 15th July, 1979. It was published in the Official Gazette on 13-6-1979. By S. 21 of the said Act, it was provided that where, in execution of any decree, any immovable property in which a debtor entitled to the benefits of the Act had an interest, had been sold on or after the 14th days of July, 1978, then notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act 1963, and notwithstanding that the sale had been confirmed, any judgment debtor claiming to be entitled to the benefits o...
Tag this Judgment!A.V. Mohamed Ali Sahib Vs. Naina Mohammed Maracair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ300
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the defendant/judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 139 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate judge, Tindivanam against the order passed in E.A. No. Nil of 1980 rejecting his application filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for wiping out of the decree as per Act XIII of 1980. The lower Court by means of a short order dismissed the application on the ground that the application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, can be filed only in the Court executing the decree and since no execution petition has been filed the application was found to be premature.2. On behalf of the revision petitioner it is contended that as per Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, all matters arising in execution can be decided by the Court. He also relies upon the case reported in M.P. Shreevastava v. Mrs. Veena : [1967]1SCR147 , where the Supreme Court observed that in so far as the proceedings under Section 47 are conce...
Tag this Judgment!V. Natarajan and anr. Vs. N. Salai Muthu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1981
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ17
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an interesting Civil Revision Petition in which a principle of 'Doctrine of Notice' has been the subject matter of argument advanced by both the sides. The Uma Investment Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act was in existence and the same became defunct and therefore an Official Liquidator had been appointed in this case. The main question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition, is whether it is the Director of the defunct company who has to be given the notice of the rights and claims of that company as original decree-holder as per the provision of 0.21, r. 6 of the C.P.C., or the Official Liquidator who had taken the reigns of administration on 22nd April, 1976 on the petition filed for winding up the company, namely, C.P. No. 441 of 1976. The preliminary decree had been passed in the suit on 9th April, 1974. The said preliminary decree had been assigned by Uma Investments Private Limited, namel...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. Wheels India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR745(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. Two questions of law have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in this reference under the I.T. Act 1961. The first question of law is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire technical aid fees paid to the foreign collaborator, M/s. Dunlop Rim and Wheel Company Ltd., should be allowed as a revenue expenditure and no portion of it should be disallowed as capital expenditure ?' 2. The answer to this question is covered by a previous decision of this court dated October 13, 1981, in CIT v. Wheels India Ltd., T.C. Nos. 1438 to 1448 of 1977 [1983] 141 ITR 748 (infra) and by T.C. Nos. 539 to 546 of 1977 (CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. : [1982]136ITR315(Mad) ). Following those decisions, we answer the question of law against the Department. 3. The second question of law for our decision is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Baluchamy Vs. Thayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad375; (1982)2MLJ1
ORDER1. This revision petition is against the order evicting the tenant for non-payment of arrears. While admitting the revision petition, the Petitioner was directed to deposit the balance of arrears. The petitioner has deposited the same. Inasmuch as the Petitioner has deposited the arrears due, Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the order of eviction has to be set aside. A Bench of this High Court in Kuppanna Chettiar v. Ramachandran, (1980) 93 Mad LW 656:'The High Court is not concerned in such proceedings with the original default committed by the cultivating tenant in payment of the rent to the landlord. It is because of this original default, the Revenue Divisional Officer directs the tenant to deposit the rent into the court before a particular date and the subject matter of the civil revision proceedings in the High Court therefore will not be the original default, but only the failure of the tenant to comply with the direction of the Re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »