Chennai Court August 1982 Judgments
Ayappa Naicker Vs. Subbammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ214
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The short fact leading to these two civil revision petitions is that O.S. No 417 of 1971 was filed by one Subbammal, the respondent in C.R.P. No. 2974 of 1981 on the foot of a promissory note. On 24th September 1971, it resulted, in an exparte decree for a sum of Rs 1,300. On 13th July, 1972 E. P. No. 348 of 1972 was filed and on 21st February 1973, a sale of an extent of 82 cents with the well took place. The second respondent in C.R.P. No. 2975 of 1981 was the Court-auction-purchaser. Thereafter on 19th March 1973, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code to set aside the sale in E. A. No. 574 of 1973. In the meanwhile, the judgment-debtor's son claiming half-share in this property which was the subject matter of sale, filed O.S. No. 670 of 1973. That suit was dismissed. Against that, A.S. No. 179 of 1974 was filed which was allowed. Ultimately the matter came up to this Court S.A. No. 922 of 1978. That was allowed on ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Srinivasan Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ513
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant herein who was working as Head Assistant, Taluk Office, Tiruchendur from 24th February, 1973 to 10th August, 1973, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 100 from one Meerathambi of Kayalpatnam on 9th August, 1973 at Tiruchendur for issuing a solvency certificate in the name of the mother of Meerathambi and accepted the Bribe amount of Rs. 100 from Meerathambi on 10th August, 1973 and it was proposed to initiate proceedings against him under Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was also arrested by the Police on 10th August, 1973. Taking note of his arrest by the police for charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was temporarily suspended from service. Later the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act were dropped as a result of which the appellant was restored to duty on 2nd September, 1974.2. However, the Department initiated the disciplinary proceedings in relation to the same allegation o...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Pistons Repco. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1982
Reported in: [1987]167ITR917(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company. For the assessment year 1971-72, it claimed deduction under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of a sum of Rs. 5,079 being the cash subsidy referable to its exports and of a sum of Rs. 1,562 being the refund of drawback duty on the ground that they are profits and gains attributable to the priority industry. The assessee claimed similar relief under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1972-73 in relation to cash subsidy of Rs. 12,262 and drawback duty of Rs. 12,643. The Income-tax Officer negatives the assessee's claim holding that the amounts received by the assessee by way of cash subsidy and refund of drawback duty during the relevant previous assessment years could not be considered as income attributable to the priority industry and, therefore, the deduction cannot be allowed under section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The disallowance of the assessee's claim by the Income-tax Off...
Tag this Judgment!Varada Iyengar Vs. Ramudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ517
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is a case in which one Ramudu applied for remission of rent arrears from one Varada Iyengar on the footing that by reason of his being a cultivating tenant in a flood-or drought-affected area, he is entitled to relief under Tamil Nadu Act XVI of 1980 (Tamil Nadu Cyclone and Flood Affected Areas Cultivating Tenants Arrears of Rent (Relief) Act, 1980).2. Varada Iyengar opposed this claim for relief on the score that Ramudu was not his cultivating tenant.3. It appears that there were earlier proceedings between the same parties under the Tamil Nadu Act X of 1959 (Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands (Record of Tenancy Rights) Act, 1969), concerning the inclusion of Ramudu's name in the record of tenancy rights as a cultivating tenant. The proceedings under that Act were pending before the appellate authority, while Ramudu filed his subsequent proceedings before the Revenue Court for remission of rent under Act XVII of 1980. Varada Iyengar accordingly filed an ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.A. Sp. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: [1985]156ITR758(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this court under section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, at the instance of the accountable person for its opinion : '(1) Whether the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 92,243 in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under section 9(1) read with section 27 and Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of Estate Duty Act, 1953, is proper and valid (2) Whether the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 10,000 under section 9 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, is valid in law ?' 2. The deceased with reference to whose estate proceedings had been initiated under the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', was the karta of a Hindu undivided family, consisting of himself and his only son. There was a partial partition in the family on October 17, 1972. The credit balance in favour of the family in the pawn-broking business as on the date of partition was Rs. 2,76,727. In the partial partition, a sum of Rs. 46,121 was allot...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. B.M. Sundaravadanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: [1984]148ITR333(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is prominent and eminent surgeon running a nursing home at Madras. One G. R. Kanagasabai Pillai of Kariamangalam in Tanjore District underwent treatment in the nursing home of the assessee during the period from November, 1957, to December, 1958, for a chronic ailment. The said Kanagasabai Pillai got completely cured and he had paid to the assessee a sum of Rs. 4,082 as fees for the professional services rendered by him. Kangasabai Pillai owned about 300 acres of lands, both wet and dry. He had no issue. By a deed dated March 9, 1960, he gifted to the assessee 31.56 acres of Nanji lands and 1.82 acres of Punja lands situate in Kariamangalam village specifically mentioning in the gift deed that the assessee has shown him kindness, infused in him self-confidence and gave him a sense of protection which he could never forget, that the assessee's kindness and protection had created a feeling of gratitude in his mind and to translate it into concrete shape, he w...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Regional Commissioner Epf Tamilnadu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ300Mad
ORDERMohan, J.1. The writ petition is for the certiorari to quash the order of the Regional Commissioner, Employees' Provident Funds, made in Proceedings No. D7/TN/4101/Regl./76 dated 21st December, 1976. The writ petitioner, the Management and the Employees entered into a settlement under S. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the following terms : 'MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT. (Under S. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 25(1) of the Madras Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958). Parties to E.I.D. Parry Limited, Ennore Settlement : (Compound Fertiliser Factory) and its workmenrepresented by the E.I.D. Parry Employees' Union,Ennore.Representing 1. Mr. C. G. RamanathanEmployer : Special Director,E.I.D. Parry Limited,Madras.2. Mr. S. H. Kanga,Works Manager,E.I.D. Parry Limited,Compound FertiliserFactory, Ennore.3. Mr. R. Ramanujam,Manager,E.I.D. Parry Limited,Personnel Department,Madras.Representing 1. Mr. R. Kuchelan, President,employees : E.I.D. Parry Employees'Uni...
Tag this Judgment!T.E. Ramanatha Rao Vs. K. Janardhanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad144
ORDER1. In this case, the question of maintainability of this petition arises. the civil revision petition has been filed under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appellate judgment dated 22-1-1980 of the Second Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, made in H. R. A. No. 315 of 1979. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate judgment was rendered on 22-1-1980, that he applied for a copy on 24-1-1980, that stamps were deposited on 14-2-1980, that the copy was ready on 17-4-1980 and that the copy was actually delivered on 18-4-1980. According to the calculation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the last date for filing the civil revision petition under S. 25 of the Act was 15-5-1980 which would fall during the summer holidays of this court which started from 1-5-1980 and the court reopened on 16-6-1980. The revis...
Tag this Judgment!P.M. Srinivasan Vs. the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC276
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the constitutional validity of Section 23-F of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, read with Section 23-D as ultra vires and beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. Under Section 23-D the Director of Enforcement is conferred a power to adjudicate and hold an enquiry in the prescribed manner and if he is satisfied on such enquiry that the person has committed the contravention of the provision of Section 23(1)(a), he may impose such penalty as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of the said Section 23. Section 23-F reads as follows:Penalty for contravention of order made by Director of Enforcement and Appellate Board.--If any person fails to pay the penalty imposed by the Director of Enforcement or the Appellate Board or the High Court, or fails to comply with any of their directions or orders, he shall, on conviction before a court, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which m...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. N.C. Kalyani Raghavan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad254; (1983)2MLJ2
1. The defendant was made ex parte by this court yesterday because, this court was satisfied regarding the contents of the affidavit of the publication accompanying a copy of the newspaper viz., Malai Murasu wherein the fact that the suit has been laid in this court by the plaintiff had been made known.2. Today, the suit had been posted for ex parte evidence. Accordingly, PW 1 was examined. He had reiterated the contents of the plaint and filed Ex, P. 1 Dt 10-10-1973, promissory note executed by N.C.Srinivasa Raghavan, deceased husband and father of defendants 1 and 2 to 6 respectively in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.85,000/- Ex P. 2 dt. 6.10.1976 a receipt issued by the said Srinivasa Raghavan for Rupees 110547.03 in favour of plaintiff; Ex. P. 4 dt. 12.10.1978, plaintiff's lawyer's notice to N.C.Srinivasa Raghavan and the 7th defendant in favour of plaintiff; Ex. P. 7 dt. 7.5.1979 an acknowledgment of liability by the 7th defendant; Ex. P. 8 dt.5.7.1979 notice issued by plaintiff's...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »