Chennai Court February 1982 Judgments
R. Karuppan Vs. Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad316
1. W. A. 441 of 1981: The appellant is an advocate of this court and one of the applicants for admission to the first year M.L. Degree Course in International and Constitution6l Law, but Was not selected He filled W. P. No 6427 of 1981 praying for the issue of a certiorarified mandamus to quash the selection of students for the first year M.L. course for the academic year 1981-82, in. the branch of Constitutional Law and International Law. That writ petition was dismissed by Padmanabban J. holding that there has been no violation of any principle which would justify nullifying of the selection. It is against this order that the present writ appeal has been filed.2. Before we deal with the various contention raised by the appellant, we may set out certain facts leading to the filing of the writ petition. The selections of candidates for various post-graduate courses in the University departments are usually done by a selection committee of the particular department which normally consis...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.S. Ramakrishnan Vs. the Assistant Director of Ex-servicemen Welfar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad431
ORDER1. The petitioner, herein seeks a writ of Mandamus from this Court restraining the respondents from taking possession of premises No. 17 in Williams Road, Tiruchirapalli except in accordance with law.2. The circumstances under which the above prayer has been made may briefly be stated: The said property belonged to the third respondent and the administration and management of the property is vested in the second respondent and the income there from is spent for the welfare of the Ex-Servicemen. no said premises has been originally leased out to the petitioner, in the year 1974 and the Petitioner continued to be in possession of the said premises as a lessee till 9-10-1981. By a notice dated 8-8-1981 the respondents requesting the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises within two months from the date of receipt of the notice on the expiry of the lease period on 9-l0-1981. The petitioner sent a reply stating that the lease may be renewed in view of the he...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-1 Vs. Jayashankar Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR208(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this court under s. 256(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Explanation under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied for the assessment year 1965-66? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Explanation under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied for the assessment year 1966-67? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied for the assessment year 1968-69?' 2. The assessment years covered by the three tax cases are 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1968-6...
Tag this Judgment!Premier Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: [1985]152ITR457(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J. 1. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of yarn. It has two units, viz., A mills and B mills. For the accounting year ended March 31, 1972, the assessee filed a return disclosing an income of Rs. 20,67,129 which was subsequently revised as Rs. 20,91,950. In the return, the assessee claimed the development rebate of Rs. 65,385 in respect of new machinery installed in the B mills. The development rebate was claimed at the rate of 25% . The assessee had sold certain machinery in the relevant previous year and had in that connection paid to the brokers a sum of Rs. 16,526 towards commission for bringing about the sale of the machinery. Accordingly, the assessee had deducted the said sum of Rs. 16,526 while computing the profit chargeable under s. 41(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The ITO held that the assessee would be entitled to development rebate only at the rate of 15% in respect of the machinery installed in B mills during the rele...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Chit Fund, Represented by Its Partner, K. Chinniah Naicker and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ62
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioners in each of these cases pray for a writ of declaration declaring that the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXI of 1976) as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules made thereunder are unconstitutional, illegal, void and unenforceable in so far as they relate to them.2. The grounds of attack urged by the petitioners in each of these petitions are:(1) That the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Act that the Act is intended to carry out the objectives mentioned in Article 46 of the Constitution is unconstitutional and cannot be pressed into service to sustain the constitutional validity of the Act and that in any event the said declaration cannot take away the jurisdiction of this Court to declare an Act as unconstitutional on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution;(2) That there are no guidelines in the Act to classify usurious transactions from legitimte dealings and therefore the...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ram Chit Fund, Salem and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad83
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioners in each of these pray for a writ of declaration declaring that the T. N. Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Tamil Nadu Act, 31 of 1976) as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the rules made thereunder are unconstitutional, illegal, void and unenforceable in so far as they relate to them.2. The grounds of attack urged by the petitioners in each of these petitioners are-1. That the declaration contained in Section 2 of the Act is intended to carry out the objectives contained in Article 46 of the Constitution is unconstitutional and cannot be pressed into service to sustain the constitutional validity of the Act and that in any event the said declaration cannot to declare an Act as unconstitutional on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 2. That there are no guidelines in the Act to classify usurious transactions from legitimate dealings and therefore the provisions of the Act go beyond the avowed purpose and suffer from the v...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Ismail and anr. Vs. Khadirsa Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ367
S. Mohan, J.1. The following geneological tree sets out the relationship of the parties: Kattufva Rowther | ________________________________________|____________________________________ | | Kadhersha Rowther Meeranan Rowther (died in 1946-47 (6th defendant) | Fathma (First wife Fathima (second wife predeceased her Junior died in 1953) | | | _________________|__________________ | | | | | Mohammed Mohamed Raja Mohi- | Meera (died Ismail deen | in 1953) (first (Second deft.) | deft.) | | Daughter Kathja Bibi (died on 20-8-1953 Married Kadirsa Rowther Plaintiff No. 1) | __|______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | Mohamed She eff Jaithoon Bi Jaina Bi Muntaz Bi (Plantiff No. 2). (3rd defen- (4th deft.) (5th defen- dant). dant) Defendants 7 to 22 Third party purchasers or their legal representatives from defen- dants 1 and 2.Kirsa Rowther, the first plaintiff, and his son filed O.S. No. 74 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Ismail and anr. Vs. Khadirsa Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad123
Mohan, J. 1. The following genealogical tree sets out the relationship of the parties:-(See genealogical table below) Defendants 7 to 22 third party purchasers or their legal representatives from defendants 1 and 2.Khadirsa Rowther, the first plaintiff, and his son filed O. S. No. 74 of 1970 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul, for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The allegations were that the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 5 are the co-owners of the suit properties. The first plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 have been managing the suit properties with the help of the 6th defendant, who is the junior paternal uncle of defendants 1 and 2. The 6th defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit properties. The income from the properties has been shared by the co-sharers. While so, defendants 1 and 2 on the one hand and the 6th defendant on the other purported to have effected a partition of the suit properties by means of a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Purushothaman and ors. Vs. K. Dhanapal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ287
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. A suit was filed by them on 8th April, 1975, for reopening a partition already effected on 11th September, 1953, and for partition and separate possession of their share in the properties. The prior partition dated 11th September, 1953, was executed by the three sons of one Krishnaswami Chetty who are defendants 1, 2 and 4 herein and the third defendant who is the wife of the said Krishnaswami Chetty. The plaintiffs are the children of the fourth defendant. The said Krishnaswami Chetty died on 19th December,, 1951, leaving the fourth defendant, the father of the plaintiffs, who is the eldest son, and two other sons, defendants 1 and 2 of whom the second defendant was then a minor represented by his mother and guardian. This suit has been filed more than, three years after the first plaintiff had attained the age of majority. One of the main defences in the suit was that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Judge has accepte...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kandaswami Chettiar as Trustee of Dharmaraja Koil Vs. R.A. Murugesa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ362
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 175 of 1968 is the appellant in this second appeal. That was a suit filed by him as trustee of Dharmaraja Koil, Arkonam, for a declaration that he is the trustee of the said temple and for an injunction restraining one Murugesa Chettiar, the first defendant in that suit, from interfering with his management of the temple properties. A little earlier than that, the defendant Murugesa Chettiar himself had filed O.S. No. 170 of 1967 praying for a declaration that he is the lawfully constituted trustees of the said temple and for an injunction or in the alternative for delivery of possession of the endowed property. The said Murugesa Chettiar also filed O.S. No. 100 of 1968 as a trustee against one Kanna Pandithar for recovery of rest due to the temple.2. As the common question to be decided in all these three suits was whether Murugesa Chettiar was lawfully constituted trustee or Kandaswami Chettiar, the appellant herein, was a lawfully constit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »