Chennai Court March 1981 Judgments
M. Meenakshisundaram Vs. S. Venkatesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad277; (1981)2MLJ288
1. The tenant, who succeeded before the Rent Controller and lost before the Appellate Authority, is the petitoner this civil revision petition. The respondent herein Med. H. R. C. Wo. 1629 of 1978 before 9th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras praying for an order of eviction against the Petitioner herein under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (18 of 1960), as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), According to the case of the respondent, he is the owner and Iandlord of premises bearing old door No. 11 and new No. 20 Thandavarayan St, Royapettah, Madras and that the Petitioner. who is a tenant in occupation on a monthly rental of Rs. 85 besides electricity charges~ had wilfully defaulted in the payment of rents for the period from March, 1977 to March, 1978. The respondent issued a notice terminating the tenancy calling upon the petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession of the portion under his occupation, but s...
Tag this Judgment!C. VaramaIn David Vs. the Bank of Madurai Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad15
1. This revision petition arises out of an application filed by a defendant in a suit before the trial Court to try a particular issue as a preliminary issue. The application is filed in the following circumstances. The petitioner was sued on a liability which he had incurred in a chit transaction conducted by the plaintiff which is a banking company. The petitioner resisted the suit on various grounds, chief amongst which was that he was a debtor entitled to the benefits of Act, 16 of 1976. The trail court however rejected that claim. In the course of its order, The court made an observation that since that debt in the question was due to a Banking company such as the plaintiff -Bank here, the petitioner was not entitled to a decision in his favour even if issue were tried.2. Inevitably, the learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision has had to canvass before me the merits of the contention that the debt which was sought to be enforced by the plaintiff -Bank in this suit was ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Varamani David Vs. the Bank of Madurai Limited (Chit Fund Departmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ117
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application filed by a defendant in a suit before the trial Court to try a particular issue as a preliminary issue. The application was filed in the following circumstances. The petitioner was sued on a liability which he had incurred in a chit transaction conducted by the plaintiff which is a banking company. The petitioner resisted the suit on various grounds, chief amongst which was that he was a debtor entitled to the benefits of Act XVI of 1976. The trial Court, however, rejected that claim. In the course of its order, the Court made an observation that since the debt in question was due to a banking company such as the plain tiff Bank, here, the petitioner was not entitled to a decision in his favour even if the issue were tried.2. Inevitably, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this revision has had to canvass before me the merits of the contention that the debt which was sought to be enforced by the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Iii Vs. S.M. Ebrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1981
Reported in: (1981)25CTR(Mad)320; [1982]134ITR599(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. Under the Annuity Deposit Scheme, repayments of the annuity deposit as and when made shall be deemed to be the income of the depositor and chargeable to tax, to be assessed as such. In this case, one Mrs. E. M. Ebrahim, made certain annuity deposits under the I.T. Act. If repayments had been made to her, they would certainly have been taxed under the deeming provisions of the Act and the Scheme. However, she died before the deposits were refunded leaving behind her surviving two sharers, one of whom was a son by name S. M. Ebrahim. In the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1971-72 this Ibrahim obtained a refund of a half of the annuity deposits as an heir to the deceased depositor. The ITO brought to tax the refund of the deposit in the hands of this heir. The refund of deposit comprised a return of the principal as well as an interest element. The Tribunal held that the legal representative was not liable to be taxed in respect of the refund of annuity ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›