Chennai Court November 1982 Judgments
Daisy Boaz Vs. Special Tahsildar (L.A.) and L.A.O. Industrial Estate, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad274; (1983)1MLJ325
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. The claimant in C.R.O.P.No.119 of 1980 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, is the appellant in the present appeal S.R.No. 115639 of 1981. The said C.R.O.P was reference under the Land Acquisition Act. The First Additional disposed of by a common judgment as many as 17 references, bearing different C.R.O.P numbers of different claimants including the above reference bearing C.R.O.P.No.119 of 1980 of the present appellant. The present appeal has been filed on 02-11-1981. Admittedly there are different decree alone had been filed along with the appeal. As per the endorsements found on the certified copy of the decree in C.R.O.P 119 of 1980 filed along with the present appeal the appeal is out of time and the note of the office of this court points out that it is out of time by 43 days. Hence, the office returned the papers requesting the counsel for the appellant to file the requisite petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!J.M.B. Roche by Power of Attorney Agent, Nevis Michael Matched Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ180
S. Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Koshal, J., as he then was, in W.P. No. 1741 of 1977. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. The prayer in the writ Petition is to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in 1/212/77 M/V and to quash the order dated 20th May, 1977. That order was passed by the first respondent in a revision preferred by the writ petitioner under Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules. 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. The order against which the revision wn preferred by the writ petitioner before the first respondent was one passed by the Collector, Tirunelveli on 15th February, 1975, demanding an Additional amount of Rs. 73,832.86 by way of interest, excess royalty and on other accounts in respect of the mineral licence for limestone over an area of forty acres in the village of Madavakurichi, Tirunelveli District. The first...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Somasundaram Vs. the Thanjavur District Co-operative Supply Marke ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ523
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. The impugned orders are assailed on two grounds. The petitioner was the Branch Manager of the first respondent Society at Kumb konam, during the year 1961 to 1964. A surcharge notice under Section 71 of the Act LIII of 1961 dated 22nd August, 1968, was served on him claiming a sum of Rs. 15,949 representing the loss suffered with reference to paddy business and informing him that h e had committed breach of trust and wilful negligence. Another notice under Section 71 was issued on 4th November, 1970 representing alleged loss suffered by the Society due to stock deficit under gunnies and super, phosphate to the value of Rs. 10,106. Again another notice under Section 71 was issued on 27th Febuary,1971, cevering all these items, and holding that petitioner has to restore a sum of Rs. 11,116 with interest at l2per cent. He submitted his representation and a surcharge order was passed on 19th April, 1971, by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvarur,...
Tag this Judgment!D. Rukmani Ammal and ors. Vs. V.K. Izudden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad303; (1983)1MLJ189
1. The landlords within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' are the petitioners in this revision. The respondent herein is the tenant within the meaning of the Act. The landlords sought the eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, on the ground that they bona fide required the premises demised for demolition and reconstruction. The tenant contested the petition of the landlords and yet, the Controller countenanced the case of the landlords and ordered eviction of the tenant. The tenant appealed and the appellate authority discountenanced the case of the landlords on two grounds, namely, (1) the premises demised consisted of two door numbers and single petition for eviction would not lie and (2) the landlords have not proved their means to undertake the work of demolition and reconstruction. The other points have been found in favour of the landlords by the appellate authority; the ap...
Tag this Judgment!A. Jabar Khan Vs. Mohamed Kasim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad309; (1983)1MLJ399
ORDER1. Jabar, Khan, the petitioner in this civil revision petition, is the owner of a residential building in Tiruchirapalli. He subjected this building to two mortgages. One was a simple mortgage for Rs. 2,000/- at 18 per cent interest under a registered document dated 16-6-1970 in favour of the respondent, Mohamed Kasim. A little while earlier, on 23-4-1970, he created a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the same Mohamed Kasim over the same building for Rs. 4,000/- under a deed of usufructuary mortgage. However, on the very next day, namely, 24-4-1970, Mohamed Kasim, the usufructuary mortgagee, executed a lease back of the said building to the mortgagor Jabar Khan on a monthly rent of Rs. 70/-.2. While so, right from the date of the lease back, namely, 24-4-1970, Jabar Khan did not pay any rent to the mortgage, Mohamed Kasim. In these events, Mohamed Kasim. after issuing a notice of termination of tenancy, filed an eviction petitions before the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli, for ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. Shri Billeshwara Charita ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Mad)136; [1984]145ITR29(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at the instance of the Revenue, raises for our decision the following question of law : 'Whether the donation made by Swadharma Swarajya Sangha to the assessee-trust constitutes income in the hands of the assessee under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. To lay bare the question to be decided and to highlight the limited controversy, the minimal facts may be noticed. The assessee, a charitable trust, received a donation from out of the capital funds on another charitable trust of the name of Swadharma Swarajya Sangha. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the year 1972-73 (for the accounting year ending on December 31, 1971), with reference to this donation received by the assessee, the ITO thought that though the amount was received towards corpus. Yet it had to be treated as income under s. 12(2) of the Act and proceeded to grant an exemption. Before the AA...
Tag this Judgment!Thirusulam Anna Harijan Blue Metal Workers Industrial Co-operative Soc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ484
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Writ Appeal No. 549 of 1982 arises out of Writ Petition No. 6331 of 1982. Writ Petition No. 6331 of 1982 was filed by K. Venkataraman, the first respondent in W.A. No. 549 of 1982, praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records in Re. No. 12562|B6|82, dated 22nd July, 1982 on the file of the Director of Industries and Commerce, Mining and Geology Branch, Guindy, Madras, and to quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction. This writ petition and the writ appeal, which arises out of it concern the quarry in Survey No. 25|2B, situated in Thirusulam village, Saidapet Taluk. According to the writ petitioner, K. Venkataraman, his father was a lessee for the quarry bearing S. No. 25|2B in Thirusulam village, for a period of three years commencing from 1st July, 1979 to 30th June, 1982. His father died on 22nd November, 1981. After his father's death, the writ petitioner applied to the Col...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. Estate of Late V. Guruviah Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1982
Reported in: [1984]147ITR342(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The question in this estate duty reference is about the manner of valuation of a partner's interest in a partnership held by the deceased at the moment of his death. 2. Unlike as in the W.T. Rules, there is no provision in the estate duty legislation which carries any express rules relating to valuation of a partnership interest. However, the presence of an express valuation formula in the law relating to wealth tax may perhaps, be explained by saying that, in wealth-tax, we deal with a live assessee who is a live partner, having a subsisting interest in an existing partnership. In such a situation, it would be essential to have the principle of valuation laid down in black and white, as it were, lest people should seek to push in the substantive doctrines of partnership law into a purely valuation question. For instance, there is the doctrine of partnership law which says that a partner, during the subsistence of his partnership, cannot put his finger on any ass...
Tag this Judgment!C.S. Pillai Vs. Capt. M.A. Murugaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ310
S. Mohan, J.1. The landlord is the revision petitioner before me. He sought eviction against the respondent in respect of the first floor of the premises bearing door No. 10, 6th Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, which, has been let out to the respondent for residential purpose. The case of the landlord was that he was residing in a rented house and he wanted to occupy the petition premises for his own use and occupation and, therefore, the requirement is bona fide. A notice was issued on 1st December, 1978, Exhibit P-3 terminating the tenancy with effect from 31st December, 1978. In spite of the same, the tenant did not comply with the demand. Hence, the petition.2. The respondent in his counter raised the following contentions. It is not correct to say that the petitioner wants to stay in his own house independently. The requirement is not bona fide. The petitioner does not require the premises under the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation. The respondent denie...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Simpson and Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)34CTR(Mad)150; [1983]141ITR35(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee in this income-tax reference is a company called M/s. Simpson and Co. Ltd., Madras. It is engaged in the construction of bodies for buses, motor trucks, etc., on chassis supplied by the customers. For the purposes of this business, the assessee had purchased various items of new machinery like 1 & 3 HP Kirloskar motor, brack press and various other machines and instruments. On the cost of these items of machinery which were newly purchased and newly installed in the assessee's plant, the assessee claimed development rebate at the higher percentage granted under s. 33(1)(b)(B)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961, read with Sch. V to that Act. The ITO, however, granted development rebate only at the usual rate and rejected the claim of the assessee for the special higher rate. The Tribunal, in appeal allowed the assessee's claim, not after an independent consideration of the claim, but merely following an earlier order in the same assessee's case, relating to an ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »