Chennai Court August 1981 Judgments
Chainraj Ramchand, Registered Partnership Firm of Bankers Chainraj Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad326
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S.672 of 1968 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore, is directed against the order dated 31211972 in I.A.No.131 of 1971, of the court below recording a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of defendants.2. The said suit, O.S.672 of 1968,was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.22, 158.50 said to be owing from the defendants. While the said suit was pending the defendants filed I.A.131 of 1971, for recording a compromise said to have been entered into between the plaintiff and defendants. Under the compromise, the plaintiff is said to have received a sum of Rs.1, 000 and has agreed to receive the balance of Rs.4, 000 in full settlement of the claim as against the defendants. The plaintiff resisted the said application contending that there was no compromise of the suit claim, that the compromise said to have been entered into by one Mohanlal chainraj who was not binding o n the plaintiff and he had no autho...
Tag this Judgment!M. Govindaswami Pillai Vs. C.T. Balasubramania thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ126
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam, passed in O.S. No. 70 of 1978 negativing the claim of the plaintiff in the suit for the refund of one half of the court-fees paid in the plaint under Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The civil revision petitioner herein filed a suit O.S. No. 70 of 1978 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam, against one C. T. Balasubramania Thevar, claiming a sum of Rs. 29,238. The defendant in the written statement alleged discharge of part of the suit claim by payment and part of the claim by supplying electrical goods. After framing issues, the suit was posted in the list for trial on 16th August, 1979 and on that day the suit was opened and Exhibits A-1 and A-2 were filed by consent on the side of the plaintiff. The suit stood adjourned to 13th August, 1979 for further evidence and it was...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ranganathar Transports (P) Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Partn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ146
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. In this civil revision petition, an interesting point has been raised with reference to the jurisdiction of a civil Court regarding the claim made in a suit filed by the respondent herein for damages that had been caused to the headlight assembly and the bulb, which came to Rs. 159.86, damage to the mudguard, which was repaired and repainted, which came to Rs. 85 and compensation towards the loss of income from the vehicle, namely, the lorry which got damaged, in that it was kept idle for two days, in a sum of Rs. 300 calculating at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day. It is interesting to note that the occurrence of the accident claimed had taken place at Vijayapuram Bazaar, Tiruvarur and the vehicles that collided were a transport bus belonging to the defendant, Sri Renganathar Transports Private Limited, Thanjavur represented by its partner and the lorry MDO 6252, which was owned by the plaintiff, the Tanjore Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Tiruvarur b...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Appal Raja Vs. the Common Fund of Senguntha Mudaliar Community of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ318
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The question in this revision is whether an eviction petition before the Rent Controller was maintainable? The building which figures in the eviction petitfon is owned by a Society called 'The Common Fund of Senguntha Mudaliar Community of POopal-rajapatti', Rajapalayam. The building is a non-residential building in Rajapalayam town. The building was under the occupation of a tenant. He is the respondent in this revision. The Society required the building for its own purposes. It accordingly moved the Rent Controller, by petition, to evict the tenant from the building.2. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition on a pure technicality. He said that the Society should have filed its petition under Section 10 (3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. But the Society had actually filed the eviction petition only under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of that Act. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition for quoting a wrong provision ...
Tag this Judgment!Cheventhipaul Nadar Vs. Srinivasa Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ348
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This second appeal was fully heard on 24th August, 1981, and judgment was reserved to this date. When the judgment was about to be pronounced, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant represents that his client has taken away the papers from him and has withdrawn his authority to appear in this case and as such1 he is retiring from this case. Whatever be the position, since the appeal has been heard and judgment has been reserved, I proceed to deliver the judgment.2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 197 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam in the appellant herein. He filed the said suit for declaration of his title to items 1 to 10 of the plaint first schedule and for an injunction against the defendant restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession thereof. His case as set out in the plaint was as follows : He, the first defendant and one Rathinaswami Nadar, the husband of the second defendant, were brothers. They orally partit...
Tag this Judgment!Ellammal Vs. Rangaswamy Koundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ41
G. Ramanujam, J.1. An interesting question of law has arisen in this case and that question of law is whether a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale is barred by the provisions of the Registration Act for the reason that the plaintiff who had obtained a sale deed has failed to agitate his rights to have the document compulsorily registered under the provisions of that Act.2. For a fuller consideration and appreciation of the said question of law, it is necessary to set out briefly the facts of this case: The fourth defendant in O.S. No. 1779 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Tindivanam is the appellant herein. The said suit has been filed by the first respondent herein for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff's case was as follows:3. The suit properties belonged to the joint family consisting of defendants 1 to 3. The first defendant, in order to discharge antecedent debts h...
Tag this Judgment!Udayappan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ170Mad
1. Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the police Department on 3rd October, 1949. He was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and was working in Tanjore East District. On 5th August, 1971, he was posted as Inspector of M2 Police Station. He took up the investigation of Crime No. 2147 of 1971 on 18th August, 1971. This had its origin on a complaint preferred on 29th July, 1971, by the Shed Master of Madras Port Trust that stainless steel sheets were stolen from Madras harbour and that out of five cases of stainless steel sheets landed from S. S. Chilka on 6th July, 1971, two cases were missing. Therefore, there was a complaint; it was registered earlier to the petitioner taking charge of the case. He conducted the investigation and found out that one Narasinga Moorthy Nadar had received the stolen property from the thieves and hence conducted a search on 24th August, 1971, of the premises belonging to him, and stainless steel was, found. A mahazar was prepared which was...
Tag this Judgment!N. Udayappan Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Home Secreta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ439
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the Police Department on 3rd-October, 1949. Fie was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police and was working in Tanjore East District. On 5th August, 1971, he was posted as Inspector of M2 Police-Station. He took up the investigation of Crime No. 2147 of 1971 on 18th August, 1971. This had its origin on a complaint preferred on 29th July, 1971, by the Shed Master of Madras Port Trust that stainless steel sheets were stolen from Madras harbour and that out of five cases of stainless steel sheets landed from S.S. Chilka on 6th July, 1971, two cases were missing. Therefore, there was a complaint; it was registered earlier to the petitioner taking charge of the case. He conducted the investigation and found out that one Narasinga Moorthy Nadar had received the stolen property from the thieves and hence conducted a search on 24th August, 1971, of the premises belonging to him, and stainless steel was, found. A mahazar w...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. Seshasayee Bros. (P.) Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR779(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessee in this income-tax reference is a private limited company. One Raman was a paid director of the assessee. He had seen many years of service as a director. He died in harness on October 29, 1962, during the assessee's financial year 1962-63. The company paid his widow Rs. 35,000 as gratuity payable for the long years of service of the deceased as director. 2. The ITO disallowed this item of expenditure in the assessee's assessment for the relevant assessment year 1963-64. On appeal, however, the AAC held that the gratuity paid to the deceased director's widow was an allowable item of its expenditure. This decision was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a gratuity scheme meant exclusively for the members of the staff working in its establishment. There was, however, an express provision in the assessee' s articles of association, namely, articles 72(d), under which the paid directors, in addition to their ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seshasayee Brothers (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ421Mad
Balasubramanyan, J.1. The assessee in this income-tax reference is a private limited company. One Raman a paid director of the assessee. He had been many years of service as a director. He died in harness on October 29, 1962, during the assessee's financial year 1962-63. The company paid hid widow Rs. 35,000 as gratuity payable for the long years of service of the deceased as director. 2. The ITO disallowed this item of expenditure in the assessee's assessment for the relevant assessment year 1963-64. On appeal, however, the AAC held that the gratuity paid to the deceased director's widow was an allowable item of expenditure. This decision was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a gratuity scheme meant exclusively for the members of the staff working in its establishment. There was however, an express provision in the assessee's articles of association, namely, Art. 72(d), under which the paid directors, in addition to their remuneration, we...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »