Chennai Court June 1982 Judgments
Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary, Hom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ1
Ramanujam, J.1. Since in all these matters the validity of the Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the 1955 Act has been challenged, they have been heard together and a common judgment is rendered.2. W.P. No. 10 of 1979 is for a direction to the respondent, State of Tamil Nadu to refund to the petitioner the excess court-fee paid on the plaints in O.S. No. 158 of 1972 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tanjore on the ground (1) that the provision of the Act providing for payment of court-fee at 71/2% ad valorem, replacing taping scale of court-fee provided in the 1922 Act is unjust, unreasonable, that the levy of court-fee at 71/2% ad valorem amounts to a levy of tax and not a fee, and that in view of the Bench decision of this Court in Sriramulu v. Registrar, High Court : (1975)1MLJ390 , holding the levy of ad valorem court-fee to be bad, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the excess court-fee being the difference between the court-fee payable under th...
Tag this Judgment!Alagammal and ors. Vs. Rakkammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad354; (1991)IIMLJ86
1. Defendants I to 5 in 0. S. No. 32 of 1976, Sub Court, Sivaganga, are the appellants in this appeal. The respondent herein instituted that suit as an indigent person for a declaration that as heir' to her father Velu Ambalam, she is entitled to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of those properties from the appellants. The respondent claimed that she is the daughter of late Velu Ambalam and one Karupayee (P. W. 5) who were married and to whom the respondent was born on 3-11-1943, at Amaravathi Pudur, where all of them were living together till 1950. According to the case of the respondent, the first appellant, whose children are appellants 2 to 5, was the daughter of the sister of Velu Ambalam. and she was brought into the family to be of assistance but later Velu Ambalam developed intimacy with her as a result of which appellants 2 to 5 were born. There was no marriage between Velu Ambalam and the first appellant, according to the respondent. The further case of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Alamelu and anr. Vs. S. Subas Chandra Bose
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ344
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed1 by the aggrieved landlord against the order of the Rent Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) Mayuram, passed in R.T.C.M.A. No. 8 of 1980.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:--The respondent herein, who is the tenant, filed an application E.R.P. No. 5 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Court, Tiruvarur for fixation of fair rent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, 1956, for the land's mentioned in the schedule to the application. The landlord, the civil revision petitioner herein objected to the maintainability of the fair rent application on the ground that the petitioner before the Rent Court was not a tenant and besides he also contended that the petitioner before the Rent Court is not a cultivating tenant as denned under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, since he is not cultivating the land by his own physical labour, or that of the members of his f...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Baroda, Represented by Its Chairman Vs. Mahendra Dadha and Two ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ85
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The respondent-tenant in H.R.C. No. 705 of 1980, on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller, Madras (XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras), has preferred this revision, questioning the legality and validity of the judgment made by the Appellate Authority (II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras in H.R.A. No. 71 of 1981) on his file, setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the petition preferred by the landlords (respondents herein) and allowing the appeal and ordering eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The brief facts of the case, which gave rise to these proceedings, are as follows: Respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the sons of late Sri Milapchand Dadha, residing at No. 93, Lloyds Road, Madras-14 filed a petition against the revision petitioner, namely, the Bank of Baroda represented by its Chairman, under Section 10(3...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. South Arcot Electricity ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1982
Reported in: [1983]140ITR997(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is an electricity distribution company by name, M/s. South Arcot Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Madras. The Board of directors of the company at a meeting held on April 25, 1957, declared an interim dividend came to Rs. 6 1/2% on ordinary shares. The aggregate amount of such dividend come to Rs. 1,08,797. By the same resolution, they had also declared a final dividend of 3% on first preference shares and 5 1/2% on second preference shares. The amount of dividend on such preference shares came to Rs. 40,000. Thus, in all, an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,49,797 was declared as dividend. After the declaration of the dividends as aforesaid, the undertaking of the company was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1954. As a result thereof, the undertaking came to be vested in the Government with effect from June 1, 1957. Consequent to the said take-over of the undertaking,...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. North Arcot District Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1982
Reported in: [1984]148ITR406(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a co-operative society carrying on business in the manufacture of yarn. It imported from Japan blow rooms and preparatory machine, etc., and the payments for these machines was to be made in instalments. The sixth instalments due by the assessee to the foreign company who supplied the machine with interest fell due on June 24, 1968. However, the said payment with interest was recorded in the books of account of the assessee in November, 1968, after receipt of communication from the Director of Handlooms through whom the transaction of import took place. The amount of interest paid on the sixth installment was claimed as deduction in the assessment year 1970-71 based on the entry made in November, 1968, in the books of accounts of the assessee. This deduction claimed by the assessee was disallowed by the ITO on the ground that the assessee, having followed the mercantile system of accounting and the interest on the sixth instalment having bec...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. O.P.N. Arunachala Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1982
Reported in: [1983]141ITR620(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is a departmental reference under the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee, Arunachala Nadar by name, and one John Samuel, acquired, in common, eighteen acres of punja lands in the year 1950. They developed the lands into salt pans and worked the pans under a partnership arrangement. The partnership was dissolved in the year 1957. Apart from his obligations under the partnership, John Samuel was indebted to the assessee under a mortgage. Subsequent to the dissolution of the partnership in 1957, disputes arose between the two individuals. The assessee retained possession of the entire eighteen acres of punja lands and was exploiting the lands as salt pans exclusively for his own benefit. He manufactured salt and derived income from all those lands. In 1958, John Samuel filed a suit against the assessee for a partition of the lands and separate possession of his half share. He also prayed for past mesne profits as respects his half share for the period during which th...
Tag this Judgment!A. Sivaraman Vs. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, by Its Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-14-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ263
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. By qualification the petitioner is an Engineer. He entered service of the Tamil Nadu Government on 23rd May, 1950. On 23rd May, 1980, he had completed 30 years of service. On that date he was employed as the Superintending Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Madras.2. On 1st June, 1980, the petitioner wrote to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board stating; that he was opting to retire voluntarily with effect from 31st August, 1980. He also stated1 that he was proceeding on leave for three months on 1st June, 1980 to 31st August, 1980. On 3rd September, 1980, the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, sent Memorandum No. 50602/Estt./A1/78 informing the petitioner that his request for voluntary retirement was refused and that he shod join duty forthwith. Thereafter, on 26th November, 1980, a charge memo, was served on the petitioner. It contained the following two charges1. That th...
Tag this Judgment!M. Renold Princely Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-08-1982
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ342Mad
1. The Petitioner who was at the relevant time employed as a temporary judicial second class Magistrate has filed this Writ Petition to quash the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 3099, Home Department dated 30-12-1981 terminating his services and reverting him to his parent department. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the Tamil Nadu Government as a junior assistant in the Agricultural Department on 13-10-1968. He was then promoted as an assistant and posted in the Health and Family Welfare Department on 12-2-1970. His services were regularised in that post with effect from the said date. In 1978 he was selected and appointed as a judicial second class Magistrate. He joined duty as such on 11-1-1979. While so, the second respondent, the Chief Judicial Magistrate for Coimbatore and Nilgiris, called for an explanation from the petitioner in respect of the following charges : 1) That he has issued a non-bailable warrant to the accused by name Major S. Raye even though h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›