Chennai Court April 1982 Judgments
T.P. Kunhiraman Vs. Official Assignee, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad148; (1983)1MLJ116
ORDER1. The insolvent's application for discharge though has the recommendation of the Official Assignee, is stoutly opposed by the two opposing creditors. The grounds of objection are (1) The insolvent has not provided even the statutory minimum of 0.25 ps. in the rupee by way of dividend. (2) The insolvent is still carrying on business, can continue to carry on business and therefore is in a position to discharge the debt if he were to be continued to be insolvent for some more time. (3) The insolvent has not maintained proper accounts. (4) The insolvent has suppressed his assets deliberately because he has got large stock of typewriters which he had not handed over to the Official Assignee.2. It is seen from the Report filed by the learned Official Assignee that the stock in trade was sold in public auction for Rs. 14,541, the unexempted household articles realised Rs. 1,767 and the insolvent's car was sold for Rs. 5, 500. As regards the lease-cum-sale agreement with the Tamil Nadu ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu by Collector of Madras Vs. Janaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ82
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This case arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is an ordinary case of eviction of a tenant for wilful default. The tenant is the petitioner before me. The building was actually in the occupation of the Post Office as allottee from the Accomodation Controller. The State Government instructed the Post Office to pay the arrears of rent as well as the monthly rent to the present owner. The Post Office, however, insisted on the landlady delivering an advance stamped receipt as a pre-condition to pay the rent arrears. The landlady did not issue a receipt since the rent was not paid. Despite a notice of demand sent by the landlady, the stalemate continued. Thereafter, the landlady filed an eviction petition. The petition was directed against the State Government because it was the statutory tenant. The ground of eviction was wilful default. Both the Rent Controller and, on appeal, the Appellate Authority found that there was no...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. A. Simen George
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ354
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a revision filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), as amended by Act (XXIII of 1973), hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the landlord against the reversing finding of the learned Appellate Authority--Fifth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in H.R.A. No. 861 of 1979.2. The landlord has filed H.R.C. No. 2180 of 1977, under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act, seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, subletting and bond fide requirement of the premises by the landlord, for his own use and occupation. The respondent herein is a tenant of the upstairs portion of door No. 5, C.P. Ramaswami Iyer Road, Madras-18, on a monthly rent of Rs. 251. The landlord averred in his petition for eviction that he is not maintaining good health for the last few years and is often visiting Madras for medical treatment, that his family is also coming ...
Tag this Judgment!Bapalal and Co. Vs. P. Thakurdas and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad399; (1982)2MLJ174
Ramanujam, J.1. This matter comes before us in the following circumstances. The petitioners and respondents herein are the plaintiffs and defendants respectively in C. S. No. 547 of 1979 on the file of this court which later stood transferred to the City Civil Court at Madras and numbered as 0. S. 2646 of 1981 as a result of the enhancement of the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court by the City Civil Court Amendment Act (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 1980). When the matter was pending before the City Civil Court an application was filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs in Tr. C. M. P. 4374 of 1981 under Art. 228 of the Constitution of India for withdrawal of the~ said suit from the City Civil Court for disposal by the High Court. The said application was allowed by a Division Bench of this court and the suit was withdrawn for disposal by this court. Since all cases which are transferred or withdrawn by the High Court under Art. 228 of the Constitution are to be heard by a Bench in view of O. 1, R....
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Sri-la-sri Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi Avergal Vs. State ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ221
T.N. Singaravelu, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 4682 of 1980 filed by the appellant, who is the Pandara Sannathi and Adeena-karthar of Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam in Thanjavur District. The Head of Tiruvavaduthurai Mutt, hereinafter referred to as the 'Head of the Mutt', filed two writ petitions, W.P. No. 4682 of 1980 for a writ of prohibition and, W.P. No. 4683 of 1980 for quashing the impugned notice against the State Government represented by the Secretary and Commissioner to Government for Religious Endowment, first respondent herein. The appellant is the Pandara Sannathi and Adheenawartha of the Mutt, which is a well known Saivite Religious Institution, recognised as a religious institution entitled to protection guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India. He has stated that as the religious Head and Preceptor he has an absolute right and freedom to initiate, disciples, who are called 'Thambirans', under him a...
Tag this Judgment!R. Shanmugam Vs. the Officer Commanding 65 Coy. Ass Supply (Type B) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ401
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The appellant was enrolled in the Army on 13th December, 1956, and had put in several years of service in NFA, Jammu and Kashmir, Bangalore, Himachal Pradesh, etc., before he was posted to Madras in May, 1972, as Naik (Store Hand Technical) to work in the Kerbside Pump in Fort St. George, Madras-9. The appellant joined duty on 31st May, 1972, and the responsibility of supplying petrol to Army vehicles on production of indent forms issued by the Army units was that of the appellant. During the period when the appellant was discharging his duties as such it was found that the appellant was not in a position to account for 5,298 litres of petrol valued at Rs. 7,417.20 p. A charge-sheet was, therefore, framed against the appellant on 4th October, 1973, charging the appellant under Section 63 of the Army Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in that he had been negligent in the performance of his duties and was also unable to account for a large quantity ...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Shankar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC338(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. This writ petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. D. Srinivasan, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order : The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records of the second and third respondents in Form No. III, dated 19th February, 1982, issued to the petitioner on 22nd February, 1982, and quash the same as illegal by the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, directing respondents 2 and 3 to forbear from proceeding further in pursuance of the proceedings of the second respondent in Form No. III, dated 19th February, 1982. The Form No. III notice has been issued only by the second respondent. There is no denial that the second respondent is empowered under section 29 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to prosecute proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Reve...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mani Vs. T.K. Jacob
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ293
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of the order of the learned 7th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, and the appellate authority in H.R.A. No. 837 of 1981, which was filed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, in M.P. No. 358 of 1981 in H.R.C. No. 3761 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller.2. The facts of the case are briefly these. The landlord, the civil revision petitioner herein, filed H.R.C No. 3761 of 1980 on the file of the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant, the respondent herein, from the petition mentioned premises, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) on the ground that the landlord requires the petition mentioned premises for his own use and occupation for the purpose of carrying on his own profession. The civil revision petitioner herein purchased the petition mentioned premises from the previous landlord by means of a sale deed, dated 16th May, 1980 and after purchase he filed H.R.C. No. 3761 of 1980, for eviction on the gro...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Hameed Bharath Press Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC379(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. In this tax revision arising under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the question is whether the assessee sold printing paper and then got it back from the customers for the purpose of carrying out printing work on such paper. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the contracts between the assessee and his customers are indivisible contracts under which then assessee undertook to deliver printed material in accordance with the customers' instructions. The Tribunal therefore considered the receipts in the assessee's business as representing turnover in sales of goods taxable under the Act. For the same reason, they rejected the contention of the assessee that the turnover only represents receipts from works contracts. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order forms, on the basis of which the transactions took place as between the customers and the assessee clearly distinguish between the two transactions, one, the supply of pape...
Tag this Judgment!Glenrock Rubber Estates Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1982
Reported in: [1982]51STC405(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This revision raises a point under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Glenrock Rubber Estates, the petitioners herein, were the lessees of a rubber estate, engaged in planting and growing rubber trees. The Tribunal accepted the following representation by the petitioners as to the nature of their activities : 'We own 374 acres of lands called Glenrock Rubber Estate in Mango Range area. Out of this, in 200 acres rubber trees are grown. We extract latex (rubber milk) from those trees. This latex is mixed with water and formic acid at the ratio of 1 gln. of water : 1 gis. of latex : 1/12 oz. of formic acid. After 24 hours, the mixture will form like a sheet and float like a pillow. This will be introduced in a roller-machine and pressed. The sheets so obtained will be smoked and kept in the smoke for five days. On the 5th day in will come out as red rubber sheets (13/4' x 1 1/4'). They are sent for sale in the crude form.' 2. The assessing authority treated the asses...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »