Chennai Court April 1982 Judgments
K.M. Raghothaman and anr. Vs. M.P. Kannappan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad235
1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 405 of 1974, District Munsif's Court, Ranipet, are the appellants in this second appeal, which has been entertained on the following question of law-'Whether on the death of Balaji of the sons of the second defendant, the 1/3rd share vested, in the mother, namely the second plaintiff without the liability to answer the second defendant's debts.'In order to fully appreciate the circumstances under which this question has arisen for decision, a brief reference to the facts and the findings of the courts below is necessary. The first appellant is the son of the second respondent, while the second appellant is the wife of the second respondent. On 5-7-1968, the second respondent borrowed for family purposes certain amounts from the first respondent on a promissory note on the basis of which the first respondent instituted O. S. 318 of 1971. District Munsif's Court, Ranipet, against the second respondent and obtained a decree for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Sundaresann Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1982
Reported in: [1983]144ITR916(Mad)
Panmanabhan, J. 1. The writ petitioner herein is one Sundaresan. The petitioners father, S. K. Venkataramanan and S. K. Kamakshisundaram were brothers and were mambers of an HUF of which Venkataramanan was the karta. Venkataramanan;'s wife is Saraswathi Ammal Kamakshisundaram remained a bachelor. While, so, on October 28, 1959, Venkatramaman and Kamakshisundram executed a settlement deed by which they covered an extend of 27.29 across of agricultural lands in Varadampalayam and Kotturverampalayam village belonging to the HUF in favour of Venkataramanan's wife, Saraswathi Ammal. Saraswathi Ammal obtained possession of the lands pursuant to the said settlement deed and was in enjoyment. On March 25, 1965, Saraswathi Ammal in here turn executed a settlement deed in respect of a portion of the said properties in favour of her husband Venkataramanan. 2. On November 15, 1970, Kamakshisundaram died unmarried leaving his brother Venkataramanan as the sole surviving in coparcener, As the accoun...
Tag this Judgment!The Workmen of Buckingham and Carnatic Mills and Two ors. Vs. the Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1982
Reported in: [1982(45)FLR304]; (1982)IILLJ90Mad
S. Padmanabhan, J. 4. These two writ petitions have been filed by the General Secretary of the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Staff Union and two others. In W.P. No. 11489 of 1931, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, Commissioner of Labour Madras, to take all measures to see that the third respondent, M/s. Buckingham & Carnatic Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Management, implements clause (v) of the Memorandum of understanding which is annexed as Annexure ('A') to the settlement, dated 6-6-1981 reached under S. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by offering voluntary retirement to the extent of the staff found excess as a result of the revised manning strength. In W.P. No. 11483 of 1981, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to prohibit the third respondent from laying off the staff until such time the voluntary retirement scheme is implemented. 5. The fac...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswamy and anr. Vs. District Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ381
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The second appeal and the writ petition are disposed of by this common judgment. The second appeal arises from O.S. No. 1042 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirupattur. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1042 of 1973, filed the suit for a declaration that he was the cultivating tenant in respect of the suit property and for an injunction restraining the defendants, Ponnuswamy and Gnanamoorthy from interfering with his possession as a cultivating tenant. The case of Masilamani was that the property originally belonged to one Abdul Azeez and that the latter inducted him into possession of the suit property. Thereafter, on 17th November,, 1972, Ponnuswamy and Gnanamoorthi purchased the property from Abdul Azeez and began to interfere with his rights.2. The trial Court decreed the suit. Ponnuswamy and Gnanamoorthy, filed A.S. No. 93 of 1975 before the Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur. The appeal was dismissed. Thereupon, they filed S.A. No. 157 of 1981 on the file of t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Workshop Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR26(Mad)
Balasubrahman, J.1. Ved Prakash, son of Lala Daulatram is an inmate of the Pondichery Ashram. He is a disciple of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. In 1968, he started a carpentry workshop with borrowed money from the very start the workshop is run on a commercial scale. But it is held under a trust called the 'Workshop trust'. Ved Prakash is the founder as well as the trustee of the trust. As founder of the trust, he has committed in writing what the terms trust are in a deed dated June 24,1968. The deed says that Ved Prakash has no manner of personal interest either in the corpus or in the income of the trust. He holds everything in trust for the Ashram. Every pie the workshop earns is for the Ashram. Ved Prakash keep nothing for himself, he takes nothing for himself. 2. In the year ended March, 31, 1971, the workshop showed a profit of Rs. 10, 600 Ved Prakash as trustee claimed that the income was exempt from income tax. He claimed that the trust was exempt from income tax He claimed th...
Tag this Judgment!Pondicherry State Weavers' Co-operative Society Vs. Regional Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ17Mad
Ramanujam, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court at Pondicherry in E.S.I. O.P. No. 2 of 1978. 2. The appellant filed an application under S. 75(1)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act of 1948 for a declaration, that the said Act is not applicable to it. Its contention was that if was a registered co-operative society of weavers, that though weavers come and work in the factory owned by the Society, the payment made to them for the work done cannot be taken to be 'wages' and that they cannot be taken as 'employees', whatever is paid to them should be taken to be dividend and not wages. Thus, the contention of the appellant-society on the basis of which the relief set out above was claimed, was that all the alleged employees are the members of the Society and whatever was paid to them towards the work done by them has to be taken as dividend and not as wages. 3. The application was opposed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chander and Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1982
Reported in: [1982]51STC262(Mad)
1. The question in the this case is whether metallic galvanised steel flexible pipes fall under entry 3 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Entry 3 is as follows :"Motor vehicles including motor cars, motor taxi-cabs, motor cycles and cycle combinations, motor scooters, motorettes, motor omnibuses, motor vans and motor lorries, chassis of motor vehicles, bodies built on chassis of motor vehicles belonging to others (on the turnover relating to bodies), component parts of motor vehicles, all varieties of trailers, by whatever name known, tyres (including pneumatic tyres) and tubes ordinarily used for motor vehicles and trailers (whether or not such tyres and tubes are also used for other vehicles), and articles (excluding batteries) adapted for use generally as parts and accessories of motor vehicles and trailers."2. The pertinent point on which attention has to be paid is to see whether the articles dealt in by the assessee in this case can be regarded ...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Rangaswamy Vs. S. Muthurama Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ122
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a petition by the tenant questioning the order of the learned appellate authority under the provisions of Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), as amended by Act XXIII of 1973. An argument had been advanced on behalf of the tenant-revision petitioner herein that when once a suit had been filed for arrears of rent commencing from September, 1974 to October, 1976, i.e., for a period of two years and two months by the landlord by way of S.C.S. No. 4657 of 1976, which was decreed on 21st April, 1977, a petition on the ground of default of rent under the provisions of the Rent Control Act for a period though different, commencing from November, 1976 to August, 1978, cannot be entertained, and as a matter of fact, held by the learned Rent Controller and the appellate Authority as one for a period for which there had been commission of wilful default in payment of rent. Mr. Chengalvarayan, learned Counsel for the revi...
Tag this Judgment!The Pondicherry State Weavers Co-operative Society, Limited, Industria ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ269
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Employees' State Insurance Court at Pondicherry in E.S.I.O.P. No. 2 of 1978.2. The appellant filed an application under Section 75(1)(g) of the Employees' State Insurance Act of 1948 for a declaration, that the said Act is not applicable to it. Its contention was that it was a registered co-operative society of weavers, that though weavers come and work in the factory owned by the Society, the payment made to them for the work done cannot be taken to be 'wages' and that they cannot be taken as 'employees', whatever is paid to them should be taken to be dividend and not wages. Thus, the contention of the appellant-society on the basis of which the relief set out above was claimed, was that all the alleged employees are the members of the Society and whatever was paid to them towards the work done by them has to be taken as dividend and not as wages.3. The application was opposed by the Employees' State Insurance Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›