Chennai Court September 1981 Judgments
Valliammai Achi Vs. Director of Enforcement, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad92
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises against the order dated 23-6-1978 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellant Board, affirming the order of the Enforcement Directorate, imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 and confiscating Rs. 18,100/- recovered from the appellant, for contravention of S. 5 (a) (aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947.2. The residential premises of one Ramaswami Chettiar was searched on 22nd May 1970, and a statement was recorded from him by the Enforcement Officers and on the basis of the said statement given by Ramaswami Chettiar, the residence of the appellant was searched by the Enforcement Officers on 23rd may, 1970. During the search, three aerogrammes and Indian currency notes amounting to Rs. 8100/- were seized. The seized aerogrammes had been addressed to the appellant by her sons Messrs. Sumbandam and Kasi Viswanathan. A statement was also taken from the appellant at the time of the seizure by the Enforcement Officers on 23rd May, 1970. In the...
Tag this Judgment!Madurai Mosaic Industries Through Its Partner G. Ramakrishnan Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ9
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. The interesting point of law arising in this appeal is whether Section 2(12) of the Employees' State Insurance Act (XXXIV of 1948) is to be in consonance with the preamble of the said Act or is it that Section 2(12) of the Act has to be interpreted in the strict sense of the rules of interpretation so as to saddle the responsibility of paying the contribution contemplated for the benefit of the employees in the factory.2. The factory in question is a partnership concern dealing in mosaic industries known as 'Madurai Mosaic Industries'. According to the petitioner and which is also admitted by the respondents that action had been taken for the period commencing from 28th August, 1967 to 11th May, 1972 during which time, it is submitted by the respondents that the concern in question, namely, the partnership firm, though it is represented by G. Ramakrishnan, one of the partners, the said partnership consisted of two partners, that they are to come under the defi...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal Achi Vs. the Director of Enforcement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ384
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises against the order, dated 23rd June, 1978, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, affirming the order of the Enforcement Directorate imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 and confiscating Rs. 18,100 recovered from the appellant, for contravention of Section 5 (a), (aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.2. The residential premises of one Ramaswamy Chettiar was searched on 22nd May, 1970, and a statement was recorded from him by the, Enforcement Officers and on the basis of the said statement given by Ramaswamy Chettiar the residence of the appellant was searched by the Enforcement Officers on 23rd May, 1970. During that search, three aerogrammes and Indian Currency notes amounting to Rs. 8,100 were seized. The seized aerogrammes had been addressed to the appellant by her sons Messrs. Sambandam and Kasi Viswanathan. A statement was also taken from the appellant at the time, of the seizure by the Enforcement Officers on 23rd ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Kuppathi Mudaliar Vs. V. Murugesan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad49
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the petitioner before this court and the defendant is the respondent. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of certain amounts due on account of dealings which the respondent had with the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition under 0. 38, R. 5, C.P.C. for attachment before judgment of the amounts due to the respondent and lying with the Executive Engineer-cum Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore. Attachment before judgment was ordered by the vacation court, without asking for security from the respondent or asking the respondent to show cause why he should not furnish security as contemplated under O. 38, R. 5 (1), C. P. C. On contest by the respondent, the court held that the attachment effected is void as it has been done in non-compliance of 0. 38, R. 5 (1), C. P. C. and there are no supporting affidavits from third parties to show that the respondent is attempting to, defraud his creditors by any overt ac...
Tag this Judgment!T. R. Srinivasa Chetty Vs. G. Nagarajan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ25
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. The civil revision petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing door No. 1140, Godown Street, George Town, Madras against whom an order of eviction was passed by the third Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in H.R.A. No. 179 of 1979, on the ground of subletting. The landlord, the first respondent herein, initially filed H.R.C. No. 2519 of 1976, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras against the civil revision petitioner herein and the second respondent heipin for eviction under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of the abovesaid premises let out to the civil revision petitioner for carrying on tobacco business only. The case of the landlord is that in the middle of the month of May, 1976, without the knowledge or consent of the landlord the tenant, the civil revision petitioner carried out extensive structural alterations to the portion in his occupation by ...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Raghavan (R.K. Selvaraj) Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1981
Reported in: [1983]140ITR894(Mad)
Sathiadev, J.1. The appeal is preferred against the order made by First Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry, in E.A. No. 5 of 1977 in E.P. No. 217 of 1974 on a petition filed under O. 21, r. 90 and s. 151 of the CPC to set aside the sale held on December 16, 1976, on the ground of material irregularity. 2. The appellants herein is Union of India represented by the ITO, Pondicherry, who was the petitioner in the court below and the two respondents herein were the respondents therein. In the petition it was claimed that one Madam Garnier was doing business in automobiles and she died in September, 1967, bequeathing her property to the second respondent and three others. She was in arrears of income-tax amounting to Rs. 10,00,000, and the only immovable property left behind is Door No. 4, St. Lawrence Street, Pondicherry. When the Department took steps to bring the property to sale, it filed O.P. No. 21 of 1975 in the same court against the second respondent and three others, who are legal ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sellappan Vs. the District Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ281
T. Sathiadev, J.1. The petitioner claims that he is a cultivating tenant within the ambit of Act X of 1969 and that the lands belonged to 4th respondent. Petitioner's name was entered in the Registers, and finally published in the District Gazette on 24th May, 1971, as a tenant. Nearly after six years, 4th respondent had filed an application before third respondent for rectification, which was dismissed. The appeal preferred to second respondent was also rejected. A further revision filed to first respondent was first dismissed for default by order, dated 27th july, 1978, but later on it was restored, and ultimately by the impugned order dated 20th June, 1975, the revision petition was allowed resulting in the removal of the name of the petitioner from the records as a tenant, Aggrieved against the said order, this writ petition is filed.2. Mr. V. Ramajagadeesan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, first submits that having dismissed the revision petition for default, the Revisional Au...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement (Bh) Ltd., Madras Vs. Kamala Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad441
1. An interesting question Of law has arisen for consideration in this appeal.2. The appellant herein filed a suit, 0. S. 6614 of 1973, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,887.97, from the second respondent, who is the defend-ant in the suit. Pending the suit, the plaintiff applied for attachment of the house property said to belong to the second respondent before judgment in 1. A. No. 23042 of 1973. The said house property was in fact attached on 10-12-1973. The first respondent herein, Who is the wife of the second respondent defendant filed -a claim petition in 1. A. 465 of 1974, claiming that the property attached did not belong to the second respondent but it belonged exclusively to her and therefore the attachment should be vacated. During the pendency of the said claim petition, the suit itself came to 'be decreed on 5-2-1974. The claim petition 1. A. No. 465 of 1974, filed by the first respondent was dismissed for default on 3-10-1974, a...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Reddiar Vs. Raja Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ288
ORDERP. Venugopal, J.1. The decree-holders are the petitioners, before this Court and the judgment-debtors are the respondents. The petitioners, each filed a suit and obtained a decree on 16th October, 1978 and 5th January, 1979, for half of the principal amount and half of the interest due as per Act XL of 1978. When Act XL of was repealed by Act XL of 1979 they became entitled to get the full amount of principal and interest due. They, therefore filed petitioners under Sections 31 to 33 of Act XL of 1979 to amend the decrees. The trial Court came to the conclusion that when once the decrees are executed or satisfied, the petitioners cannot amend the decrees as per Section 33 of Act XL of 1979, and as the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1122 of 1980 has executed the decree and realised a sum of Rs. 500 on 21st April, 1979, Rs 300 on 19th June, and Rs. 4,000 on 2nd July, 1979 and the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1126 of has executed the decree and realised a sum of Rs. 100 in E.A. No. 16 of 1979,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›