Chennai Court February 1981 Judgments
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ceyvere Southern Inc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC328(Mad)
Gokulakrishnan, Offg.C.J.1. The Tribunal has held that no new commodity emerged in the process done by the assessee and as such the respondents have to succeed. In Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pio Food Packers : 1980(6)ELT343(SC) , the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with sliced pineapple fruits which have been processed for the purpose of being sold in sealed cans. In this process, the Supreme Court held that no new commodity emerged. The reasoning of the Tribunal as regards lobster which is involved in this case, in our view, is correct and we also think that in the process no new commodity has emerged to attract tax liability. Hence this tax revision case is dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesan Vs. Valambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ71
V. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Lakshmanan and his wife Valambal Ammal are an elderly couple. Lakshmanan is aged about 7u years. Valambal Ammal has passed 60 years of age. Lakshmanan has a house in Mariamman Koil Street, Bheema Nagar, Trichinopoly. In that house this old couple are residing for a long time now. Along with them dwell their children and grandchilren. Their first son had unfortunately died at an early age, leaving a widow. The widowed daughter-in-law is also living with them. A few buildings away in the same street Valambal Ammal has a house of her own. The house is in the occupation of a tenant, byname, Ganesan. Valambal Ammal fileda petition before the Rent Controller for evicting this tenant from her house. The principal ground urged in the eviction petition was that she required that house bono fide for her own persona 1 occupation as a residence Valambal Ammal had some other house in Trichinopoly town, but they were all occupiedby tenants. She particularly wanted the house ...
Tag this Judgment!Calcutta Insurance, Madras, Now Known as National Insurance Co. Ltd. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad83
1. These two appeals arise out of two claim petition filed under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by the window of one, Dharmaraj and the widow and children of one Thirumal, both of whom died in a motor vehicle accident.2. On 22-8-1972, at about 12.50 p. m. the said Dharmaraj and Thirumal were going on a motor cycle MSQ 6512; Dharmaraj riding it and Thirumal sitting on the pillion. When they were going in the Kodambakkam bridge in Arcot Road the motor car MSR 5018, which was coning in the opposite direction, suddenly dashed on the motor cycle as a result of which the right leg of Dharmaraj was cut off below the knee, and thrown to a distance of 12 feet and both the legs of the pillion rider, Thirumal, were fractured. Both the injured were taken to the Government Royapettah hospital, but in the evening of the same day both of them succumbed to the injuries. On the ground that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor car MSR 5018 by its driver, the widow of D...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. M.K. Srimathi Ammal Vs. P. Chellammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ315
ORDERV. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The Tami Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary) Relief Act (XV of 1976) by Section 3 laid down that no suit for the recovery of a debt shall be instituted against any agriculturist in any civil Court on and from the date of commencement of the Act and before the expiry of one year from the said date. Under Section 1 (3), the Act was deemed to have come into force from 15th day of January, 1976. The one year period referred to in Section 3 would thus expire on 15th January, 1977. The moratorium period of one year was extended from time to time by the subsequent enactments passed by the State Legislature. In overall result, the period of moratorium against filing of suits for recovery of debts subsisted from 15th January, 1976 to 15th July, 1978.2. The petitioner in this revision brought a suit against the respondent during the subsistence of the moratorium on 20th September, 1976. The suit was instituted on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai. This suit al...
Tag this Judgment!Jannet Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. (In Liqn), Madras Vs. M.N. Ethirajan and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad133
1. This revision is from a decision of a New Trial Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, arising out of a suit based on a chit transaction. The chit in question was conducted by a limited company which had since gone into liquidation. The Official Liquidator of the chit fund company in liquidation had brought a suit against three defendants. The first defendant was a subscriber to the chit. The two other defendants were sureties. The first defendant bid at the auction and he became a prized subscriber. He however, defaulted in the payment of the future subscriptions. Meanwhile, the company went into liquidation. Although the first defendant had defaulted in making payment of future subscriptions, the Official Liquidator sought to recover from him the entire money due under the promissory note executed by the subscriber. The promissory note was for a sum of Rs. 1000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. It was executed on 15-3-1971 a week after he had bidden at the a...
Tag this Judgment!Angappa Gounder and ors. Vs. Rajavelu Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad282
1. This second appeal raises an interesting question of law about the principle of res judicata.2. The only question that falls for determination is that when two suits involving substantially the same issue are disposed of under a common judgment, non-filing of an appeal against the judgment and decree in one suit, will operate as res judicata when the decision in the other suit alone is challenged in the appeal.3. Though in my opinion, the Supreme Court has laid down that the principle of res judicata will be attracted 'in such cases, vide Koshal Pal v. Mohanlal, : [1976]2SCR827 , followed by Balasubrahmanyam I in Khaja Mohideen v. Muhaideen Batcha, (1979) 92 Mad, LW 28: AIRA079 19M 155 and Lanankutti v, Thomman, : AIR1976SC1645 , learned counsel for the respohdents sought to distinguish these rulings on the ground that the, abode principle wig not be applicable to cast where the two suits were disposed of under a common Judgment Incidentally, the learned ?,couosel claimed 8upport to...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank Vs. N.A. Sellamuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad89
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the learned 11 Additional Subordinate Judge of Salem in O. S. No. 8 of 1974.2. The appellant instituted O. S. No. 8 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Court. Salem, for recovery of a sum of Rupees 16,849.26 due under a mortgage by deposit of title deeds created by defendants 1 and 2 on 12-6-1970, receiving a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-, repayable with interest at 41/2 per cent over the Reserve Bank of India official rate with a minimum of 91/2 per cent per annum with quarterly rests, every month and in default, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with quarterly rests.3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who were defendants 1 and 2, filed a memo on 30-9-1974 admitting the suit claim. The third defendant, who is the contesting respondent, is the Salem Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, Ltd. in whose favour the second defendant executed A. registered mortgage deed in respect of one of the suit items,, namely S. No. 147/4C of Anupur Village...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Gouder Vs. Deenappa Gouder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad240
ORDER1. These revisions have been brought before this Court under S. 11 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act. 1956. The Petitioner is the landlord of 1.90 acres of land, which is classified under S. 4 (1) (iii) of the Act. The landlord and tenant had an agreement for 11 years, which was executed in the year 1952. Under that agreement the tenant had to Day the rent by cash of Rs. 305 per year. It would appear that the tenant had paid rent in advance for the entire period of 11 years. Nevertheless the landlord had filed a petition before the Rent Court for fixation of fair rent under S. 9 (1) of the Act. This Petition was resisted by the tenant In his petition the landlord claimed that the fair rent for the land would be Rs. 3000 per annum. The tenant opposed the application maintaining that the fair rent cannot be charged at anything above Rs. 305 Per annum. The Rent Court conducted an enquiry and ultimately fixed the fair rent at Rs. 1100.2. Against this det...
Tag this Judgment!Kores India Limited Public Limited Company Vs. Dinesh Mothilal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ124
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This revision comes up under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It has to do with the determination of fair rent of one of a group of buildings belonging to the landlord. The petitioner in this revision is a tenant of one building out of a group of buildings, all belonging to the same landlord, which are clustered together with open spaces in between.2. The landlord filed an application under Section 4 of the Act for fixation of fair rent for the building under the occupation of the revision petitioner. The fair rent was fixed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority, on the basis of the requirements laid down under that provision.3. The one and only point, which is taken up in revision by the tenant is as respects the treatment to be accorded to the open space appurtenant to the building in which he is in occupation. The general rule laid down by proviso to Section 4(4) of the Act is, that 50% of any open space...
Tag this Judgment!Duraisami Reddiar and anr. Vs. Saroja Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad351
1. This Second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in 0. S. No. 1906 of 1973 in the court of the District Munsiff. Vridbachalam the suit properties belonged to one Ramaswami Reddiar. His first wife died about thirty years before suit leaving her only daughter,, Andal, who is married to one Narayanaswami Reddiar. The said Ramaswami Reddiar married one Jagadambal about 27 years prior to the suit. Jagadambal died on 6th April, 1968. She had two children but both of them predeceased her. Ramaswami Reddiar himself died on 20th September, 1973. Ramaswami Reddiar executed a settlement deed on 27th January, 1966 marked as Ex. A. 1 under which there is a description of the properties in three schedules. It would be necessary to go into the terms of the settlement deed later. But. according to the plaintiffs. the said Ramaswarni Reddiar had handed ever possession of the properties settled there under to Jagadambal's brother and sister. On 13th August. 1968, there is what purports to be a rev...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »