Chennai Court February 1981 Judgments
S. Chellaiyan Vs. S. Sathiak Tishran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad148
1. The second defendant in 0. S. No. 584 of 1972, on the file of the District Munsif of Thanjavur is the appellant herein.2. The suit 0. S. No. 584 of 1972 was filed by the first respondent herein for partition and separate possession of his one-third share in the suit property. The plaint case is that the suit property, which is a house, was settled on the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2, who are all the sons of one Sivakolundu and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to claim an one-third share therein.3. The suit was resisted by the second defendant alone. His case was that the first defendant having relinquished his one-third share in his favour, he is entitled to get two-thirds share in the suit property, His further claim was that he had made considerable improvements to the suit property, and, therefore, even if the plaintiff is granted a decree for his one-third share, sufficient provision has, to be made for the cost of the said improvements. He also contended that three of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagathyammal Vs. Dhanabagyathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad303
1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in 0. & No. 1027 of 1970 in the court of the District Munsif of PattukottaL The suit property is situate in Maharaiasamudram village which was an inam village taken over by the Government. Proceedings for Patta in relation to the property were said to be pending. The plaintiff purchased this property under sale deed dated 16th June. 1968 from the fourth defendant. Alleging that defendants 1 to 3, who attempted to purchase the suit property from the fourth defendant did not succeed and that they obstructed the plaintiff from enjoying the suit property be came forward with the present suit initially far the declaration and permanent injunction or in the alternative, for recovery of possession as against defendants 1 to 3. The second defendant died during the pendency of the suit and -his legal representatives are defendants 5 and 6. The fourth defendant, the vendor to the plaintiff was impleaded on 2-2-1972 in pursuance of an applicat...
Tag this Judgment!M. Venkatesan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR886(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee in this case owned agricultural lands. They are situate within the limits of Cuddalore Municpality. The assessee should the lands to an urban co-o0operative building society at a profits of Rs. 1,14,000. the sale took place on March 4,1970. The assessee claimed that this profits was not liable to capital gains tax. The claim was made i connection with his income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1970-71. The ITo rejected the assessee claim for exemption. and bright the amount to tax under the head 'Capital gains'. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal conferred the assessment, in appeal. 2. In this reference, the assessee contends that the assessment is bad in law. The contention bears examination by reference to the definition of 'capital assets' in s. 2(14) of the I. T. Act and the place of agricultural lands in at definition. Section 2(14), subject to exceptions, broadly defines a 'capital asset' as property of any kind held by an assessee. The e...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv, Madras Vs. Ganesh Fire Work ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Reported in: [1984]147ITR781(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These two tax cases bear on the same assessment year of the same assessee under the I.T. Act, 1961. The following questions of law have been referred for our opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of registration till December 7, 1969, for the assessment year 1970-71 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment should be made in the status of a registrated firm till December 7, 1969, and thereafter till March 31, 1970, the assessment should be made in the status of an unregistered firm ?' 2. The facts bearing on these two questions may be shortly stated : The assessee is a partnership firm, assessed to income-tax in the status of a registered firm till the assessment year 1969-70. The firm had four partners. One of them, Velayutha Nadar, di...
Tag this Judgment!Ellapuram Panchayat Union, Periapalayam, Represented by Its Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1981
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ382
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The defendant in O. S No. 413 of 1972, District Munsif's Court, Tiruvellore, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. That suit was instituted by the respondent herein for a declaration that a passage leading to the Devasthanam in Periyapalayam belongs to it and also for an injunction. That suit was resisted by the petitioner herein on several grounds which need not be noticed in detail for purposes of the present civil revision petition. Suffice it to say that the learned District Munsif, Tiruvellore, on consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, dismissed the suit instituted by the respondent on 30th July, 1973. Aggrieved by that, the respondent preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 178 of 1973 to the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram. In order to contest the appeal, the petitioner had engaged one Thiru C. M. Palanirajakumar as counsel. The appeal A. S. No. 178 of 1973 filed by the respondent herein before the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram, was laser transfe...
Tag this Judgment!United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Madurai Vs. M.S. Dur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad287; (1982)1MLJ111
Ramanujam, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Madurai against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.O.P.No. 36 of 1976, at the instance of the claimants-respondents 1 to 8 therein.2. On 27-10-1975 one Alagappan aged about 32 years, who was a senior clerk of the State Bank of India, Kodaikanal, was returning from Madurai to Kodaikanal, in a car MDA 1194, which was owned by the 9th respondent and driven by the 10th respondent herein. At about 6 a. m. when the car was going in front of the Parayai Mills, gate in Samayanallur on the Dindigul main road, the driver of the car lost control of the vehicle and the car went to the left end of the road and hit against a tree and as a result of the impact the gear rod caused grievous injuries on the stomach of Alagappan. He was immediately taken in a bus to the Government Hospital, Madurai where he died the next day. The said car had been insured with the second responde...
Tag this Judgment!Light Roofings Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise, Kancheepuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT738(Mad)
ORDER1. This suit which was originally filed as O.S. No. 50 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, had been ordered to be transferred to the file of this court by Natarajan J. as per the order dated 28-2-1978 made in Appln No. 810 of 1978. Accordingly the suit was withdrawn from the Subordinate Judge, Chingelput, and taken on the file of this court as C.S. No. 199 of 1978. 2. The plaint allegations are as follows - The plaintiff 'Light Roofing Ltd.', is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 125 Lloyds Road, Madras 86, and its factory is situate at Chittipunyam village in Chingleput District. 3. The first defendant is the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore. The second defendant is the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kancheepuram and the third defendant is the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 4. The plaintiff had been manufacturing at its factory at Chettipura...
Tag this Judgment!Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT884(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner manufactures a number of excisable products. Out of such products, the following products are admittedly packed in metal containers - 1. Caustic soda 2. V.N.N. Oil(V) 3. Bleaching powder 4. Vanaspathi 5. Methylene Chloride 6. Chiereform 7. Carbon Terrachloride 8. Calcium Chloride. The petitioner has not stated that the aforesaid eight products can be pushed into the market at the factory gate for sales without they being packed in metal containers. The petitioner manufactures the metal containers also. Such metal containers by themselves are excisable goods and as such the petitioner paid excise duty on such metal containers under item 46 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1 of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The eight finished products in the metal containers also underwent the levy of excise duty. The petitioner wanted refund of the excise duty paid as above for the period from 1-3-1970 to 1-10-1974 on two basis; firs...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Jayaram Motor Service Vs. Pitchammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: [1982(45)FLR254]; (1982)IILLJ149Mad
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the orders of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai in W.C. Application No. 66 of 1973 One Pitchammal, wife of Vanniappa Pillai residing in Vedabadra Sayanar East Street, Srivilliputur, filed the abovesaid W.C. Application No. 66 of 1973, against the management of the Jayaram Motor Service at Srivilliputtur. In the application before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is stated that her husband late Vanniappa Pillai was a workman employed by the opposite party for 17 years prior to 13the June, 1972, and on the 13th June, 1972, he died in the course of his employment. Her husband Vanniappa Pillai left the house for duty on 13th June, 1972, and on the way to the workshop due to heart attack he fell down and was given treatment and subsequently died. She claimed a compensation of Rs. 7,000. In the counter-statement the opposite party admitted that Vanniappa Pillai was working under the opposite ...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Lonappan and Sons Vs. S. Mohamed Iqbal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad238
ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner herein, The petition for eviction was filed an the -ground that the landlord requires the building for demolition and reconstruction since it is a very old one and its first floor has on1y a Wed roof. It was averred in the Petition that the building is situate in an important commercial center and on the surroundings new buildings have been constructed. Both the Courts below have gone into the bona fides of the requirement of the Landlord and allowed the Petition, Aggrieved by the orders of the courts below~ the tenant has preferred the above civil revision petition2. Mr. Habibullah Badsha. learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. submitted that the courts below have not properly considered the bona fides of the landlord in requiring the building for demolition and reconstruction. that the Petition itself lacks Particulars regarding the reason for demolition and reconstruction and that in any event the Petition has to be dismissed since the landlo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »