Chennai Court July 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rahmath Bi and anr. Vs. State Wakf Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad202
ORDER1. These civil revision petitions are at the instance of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 258 of 1980 and O. S. 111 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif's court, Vellore, and arise out of the dismissal of 1. A. 2681 of 1980 in 0. S. 258 of 1980 and I. A. 2440 of 1980 in 0. S. 111 of 1980, filed under O. 23, R. 1 (3), C. P. C., praying for the withdrawal of the suits 0. S. 258 of 1980 and 0. S. 111 of 1980, with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. The petitioners in C. R. P, 3311 of 1980 instituted 0. S. 258 of 1980 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's court, Vellore. with reference to two items of properties praying for a declaration of their title and for an injunction restraining the Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the properties or by taking forcible possession of the properties by execution of the decree in 0. S. 958 of 1967. According to the case of the petitioners, on 9-2-1967, they purchased...
The Proprietor Sri Rajeswari Transports (Firm) Vs. M.G. Rajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ248
G. Ramanujam, J.1. Since all these matters arise out of the claim petitions filed in respect of the same accident, they are dealt with together.2. On 14th June, 1978 at about 3-00 P.M. there was a collision between Jeep TNU. 5282 belonging to Theni Allinagaram Municipality and the bus TNU 4725 belonging to one Rajeswari Transports, near Aallakaruppanpatti in Periakulam-Batlagundu Main Road. The officers of the Allinagaram Municipality were proceeding in the jeep to Dindigul for the purpose of having consultation with their advocate and the officers who travelled in the jeep were the Special Officer, the Municioal Engineer, one Narayanaswami and one Sanitary Inspector by name Jayavelu, apart from the driver. As a result of the impact, all the occupants of the jeep sustained grievous injuries. After getting treated for those injuries, the injured filed claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madurai, claiming various amounts as compensation in respect of the injuries ...
S. Srinivasan (Died) and ors. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT360(Mad)
ORDER1. Dr. S. Srinivasan, hereinafter referred to as the original petitioner, who is no more and whose legal representative is continuing the writ petition, manufactured and cleared Homoeopathic injections during the years 1965-66 and 1966-67. On the basis that Homoeopathic injections which are administered by parenteral route could not be recognised as Homoeopathic medicines, which are excluded from the burden of duty under Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the act, the Homoeopathic injections cleared by the original petitioner during the years 1965-56 and 1966-67, were assessed to duly under the Act and requisite demands were issued. Before confirmation of the demands, the original petitioner was directed to show cause and he had adequate opportunity to make his representation. The original petitioner seemed to have filed his representation and along with it, he referred to certain Authorities on Homoeopathic medici...
P. Somasundaram Vs. M. Govindaswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad117
1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent herein filed Petition No. 1043 of 1974 before the Special Deputy Collector (Revenue Court) Tiruvarur, seeking resumption of agricultural land measuring 1.21 acres lying in S. Nos. 148/2, 166/1 and 135/6 of Thattathimulai village Nannilam taluk, for his personal cultivation, under S. 4 -AA (3) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The respondent was serving in the Armed Forces from 17-10-1962 to 31-8-1967. The suit lands were purchased by him by a registered document in Bo. 761/66 D/- 10-6-1966. After his discharge from the Army on 31-8-1967, the respondent wanted to have personal cultivation of the lands he purchased on 10-6-1966. In order to get the resumption of the lands, the respondent filed a petition under Section 4-AA of the Act. The petitioner herein contended that the respondent was not a 'landlord' on the date of his joining the Armed Forces; that he became a landlord only in 1966, that he has no fac...
Ulaganathan Chettiar Vs. Durairajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad424; (1982)2MLJ74
1. The Second defendant in O.S. No. 1705 of 1973 in the court of the District Munsif of Vridhachalam is the appellant. One Arumugha Mudaliar had four daughters of whom one Sellammal died issueless. The position of the family with reference to the rest of the daughters will be clear form the following pedigree:-Arumugha MudhaliarValliammal Kamalammal AmirthammalSudaravalliammal Parumal Pillai Kaliamma (D-1) (D-2)-3wives sonKasturi 1st wife'sNagaraj(d. 10-06-1952) 2nd wife Kasthuri( Durairaj P.1)3rd wife-VijayaRaviThe first plaintiff is the son of Perumal Pillai the first defendant, and Kasthuri is the great grand daughter of Arumuga. the said Kasthuri having married her mother's cousin Perumal as his second wife. After the death of Kasthuri, whom he had married subsequent to his first wife's demise. he married a third wife by name Vijaya. Through the first marriage he has a son by name Nagaraj. Through the second marriage he has a son by name Durairajan. that is, the plaintiff. Through ...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Rafeeq Ahmed and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC281(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This is a revision by the State Government against an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee in this case is a partnership firm called Rafeeq Ahmed and Company. They were dealers in skins. They entered into certain transactions of export of hides and skins, putting them through a concern called Abdul Shukoor and Company. They contended that the turnover of Rs. 89,59,712 handled by Abdul Shukoor and Company constituted sales in the course of export and those sales were their own sales effected by Abdul Shukoor and Company as their commission agents. The assessing authority did not accept this contention, but held that the assessee had sold these goods to Abdul Shukoor and Company, who, in turn, sold them to the foreign buyers. In that view, the assessing authority brought the sales to tax. The matter was taken in appeal, where the Tribunal ultimately held, agreeing with the assessee's contention, that the turnover in question constituted sales in...
B. Soundarapandian Vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad206; (1982)1MLJ233
1. This is an appeal preferred by the Joint Receivers of Micro Tools Ltd. The Industrial Finance Corporation of India, the first respondent herein filed o.p. 200 of 1977 on the file of this Court under Sec. 30 of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 praying for sale of the properties of Mls Micro Tools Ltd., described in the mortgage deed dated 2nd May 1967, and the deed of further charge created there under and for the appointment of a receiver in respect of the said properties. They have also prayed for a direction to the Receiver to take possession of the properties forthwith. By an order dated 26th July 1977, this court appointed two advocates, Messrs. G. Gopalaswami and A. Sivap, as Joint Receivers and directed them to take possession of the factory pursuant to this order, the Joint Receivers took possession of the factory, made a detailed inventory of the machineries and other articles and filed a first report. Thereafter the joint Receivers were visiting the factory and ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.V.M. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: [1984]146ITR355(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This reference raises an interesting point. The assessee is a company carrying on business as a distributor of cinematograph films. The assessse gives the positive prints of films to distributors who exhibit them in their cinema houses. The consideration received from them by the assessee goes by the name of 'collections'. To the assessee, such collections are receipts from the assessee's trade in the distribution of films. Before or at the time of handing over the prints for exhibition to an exhibitor, the assessee received what is called a security deposit. It is said that the deposit is taken by the assessee for the due fulfilment of the terms of the agreement between the parties. The amount in deposit being for this purpose, viz., for the fulfilment of the terms of the agreement, it will not remain with the assessee in deposit when the agreement is fulfilled or completed. The deposit is thus a returnable or a refundable deposit. But, it might so happen, in t...
Sakuntala Ammal and anr. Vs. Seetharama Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ312
ORDERP. Venugopal, J.1. The petitioner in I.A. No. 617 of 1975 filed the petition under sections 4 and 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, to release four items of properties from the custody of the Official Receiver on the ground that his step-mother had purchased those four items from the insolvent. The insolvent and the Official Receiver were impleaded as respondents in that petition. The insolvent remained ex parte. The Official Receiver issued notice to all the creditors and having no response from the creditors, filed a counter stating that the creditors have not taken any interest. Thereafter, three of the creditors filed I.A. No. 687 of 1975 to implead themselves as parties in I.A. No. 617 of 1975. In view of Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and the absence of any material to show that) the Official Receiver was not acting properly in the interest of the estate, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the creditors for impleading themselves as parties i...
Rathinasamy Vs. Komalavalli and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad45
1. This matter has come before the Bench on a reference by Ratnam J. on account of conflicting views expressed in the judgments of single Judges, namely by Balasubrahmanyam J. in Venkalmorban v. Dakshinamurthy, C. R. P. 1667 of 1978; by N. S. Ramaswami J. in J. Eswaan v. Palaniammal, 1974 TNLJ 380 and by Gokulakrishnan J. (as he then was) in S. Ganapathi v. Kumaraswami, on theimportant question whether S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to appeals preferred under S. 23(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973.2. The first respondent herein obtained an order of eviction against the petitioner and his wife, who is the second respondent herein in CROP 18 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Muncie, Srikali). The eviction order was passed on 11-4-1980. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority(Sub Court, Mayuram) on 18-6-1980 after a delay of 28 days. The petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »