Chennai Court January 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S.R. Chakrapani Chettiar Vs. S. Guruswami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad194
Ratnam, J. 1. The defendant in 0. S. No. 371 of 1974, Sub Court, Cuddalore, is the appellant in this appeal. That suit was laid by the-respondent herein praying for the recovery of a sum of Its. 40,000, as damages and other incidental relief's under the following circumstances. The plaintiff and the defendant are stage carriage operators and they have been applying for grant of permits in respect of several routes. In relation to two such routes, namely, Panruti-Vallam and Pantuti-Arasur, the plaintiff, the defendant and certain others had applied for the grant of stage cairriage permits. Sometime in October 1971, before the applications were taken up for consideration, an agreement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff should withdraw, his application for the route Panruti-Vallarn and that the defendant should likewise withdraw his application with reference to the route Panruti-Arasur. In accordance with his agreement, when the R. T. A. took up for...
K.S.R. Chakrapani Chettiar Vs. S. Guruswami Reddia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC408
Ratnam, J.1. The defendant O.S. No. 371 of 1974, Sub Court, Cuddalore, is the appellant in this appeal. That suit was laid by the respondent herein praying for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 40,000, as damages and other incidental reliefs under the following circumstances. The plaintiff and the defendant are stage carriage operators and they have been applying for grant of permits in respect of several routes. In relation to two such routes, namely, Panruti-Vallam and Panruti-Arasur the plaintiff, the defendant and certain others had applied for the grant of stage carriage permits. Sometime in October 1971. before the applications were taken up for consideration, an agreement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff should withdraw his application or the route Panruti-Vallam and that the defendant should likewise, withdraw his application with reference to the route Panruti-Arasur. In accordance with this agreement, when the R.T.A. took up the considerati...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. P.T.N. Shensagamoorthy a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Mad)144; [1983]144ITR724(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the points involved in both the tax cases are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. The assessee in T. C. NO. 305 of 1978 was assessed to welath-tax for the year 1975-=76. Before the WTO, the assessee calimed exmeption in relation to teh value of the salt pans under s. 5(1)(xxxi) of the W. T. ACt, 1957. This claim was nto accpeted by the WTO on the ground that the salt pans have been leased out and, therefore, the assesse, who is not acutally carrying on the manfuacture of salt, cannt calim the bebefit under the sid provsion. this a sum of Rs. 40,000 being the value of the salt pans, was inclided in his net welath. the appeal thereform to the AAC was also dismissed. thereafter, the asessee filed an appeal before the Inco, e-tax Appellate TRibunal. the Tribunal after examining the scope of s. 5(1)(xxxi) of the ACt, felt that even though the assesee has leased out the salt pans it should be takne as an undertaking owned by the assessee, as contemplated under s....
Ramanuja Mudali Vs. M. Gangan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad103
1. This petition coming on for hearing on this day the Court delivered the following Judgment:_2. The defendant is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,000/- by way of damages and for costs.3. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-revision petitioner are the natives of 11 Vazhapandal villages. In the plaint, the plaintiff-respondent has averred that the defendant-revision petitioner herein in his evidence. The evidence of P. W. 2 is that be is cultivating the land of the village Munsif an waran basis and that he bas to cross the river channel to go to that land and that the said river channel is south of the lands of the defendant-revision petitioner herein. The further evidence of P. W. 2 is that he used to go through the land of the defendant-revision petitioner to reach the river channel to divort the river channel water to his lands for irrigation at nights, The specific evidence of P. W. 2 is that on ...
Sabanayagam K. Vs. the Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Housing D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ87Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on this day upon preceding the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 27th April, 1981 and made herein, and the counter affidavits filed herein and the relevant records on the file of the respondents herein and comprised in the return of the respondents herein to the write made by the high court, and hearing the arguments of Mr. B. R. Dolia of M/s. Aiyar and Dolia advocates for the petitioner, and Mr. J. Kanakaraj. Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the 1st respondent and of Mr. Doraiswami, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, the Court made the following order : 2. There writ petition is for mandamus direct the second respondent, the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board to pay bonus as per the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act of 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to the petitioner for the years commencing from the sixth accounting year from the date of the coming into existence ...
R. Chandra Sekaran Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: [1985]58STC204(Mad)
ORDER1. Since the point involved in both the cases is the same, they are dealt with together. The disputed turnover in both the cases represents the sale value of silver coins which have been made to the order placed by the Sankara Mutt. The assessee has firstly contended before the Tribunal that the amount received by sale of the coins made out of silver was the amount received for work and labour and therefore the turnover cannot be taxed. 2. But, the Tribunal found that the assessee has used his own silver for manufacturing the coins according to the specifications given by the purchaser that therefore, the coins should be taken to have been sold as finished goods and that it does not involve purely a works contract. The second point urged by the assessee before the Tribunal was that the sale of silver coins was without any profit-motive and therefore, it should not be taxed as sale. The Tribunal held that for purposes of sales tax profit element does not come in. Once there is a sa...
H.G. Krishna Reddy and Co. Vs. M.M. Thimmaiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad169; (1983)1MLJ467
Padmanabhan, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree for specific performance of a contract for sale passed by this court in C. S. No. 213 of 1974. The second defendant, H. G. Krishna Reddy and Co., is the appellant. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant in the suit. The facts of the case may be set out as follows.2. On 26th Jan. 1974, the second respondent executed a receipt Ex. P. 1 for Rs. 3,000 in favour of the first respondent. The receipt recited that a sum of Rs. 3,000 was being received towards the agreed price of Rs. 1,22,500, for the sale of the suit property by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent. It further stated that the sale was to be completed within 456 days from the date of the advocate for the first respondent, passing the title deed. Among others, there was a further clause to the effect that the second respondent should execute a regular contract for sale on a stamp paper wit...
Sampoorna Ammal Vs. Asokan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ66
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against the common judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the appeals, A. S. Nos. 574 of 1972 and 522 of 1974 filed by the 4th defendant in O.S. No. 191 of 1967 and O.S. No. 3 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Erode. One Chinnaswami Gounder had two minor sons Asokan and Prithiviraj and a minor daughter Jothi by his wife Thangammal. Admittedly, the suit properties were joint family properties in the hands of Chinnaswami Gounder. While so, Chinnaswami Gounder, sold the plaint A schedule property to the appellant Sampoornammal for a sum of Rs. 15, 000 under a sale deed, dated 29th November, 1965. Asokan and Prithiviraj represented by next friend filed O.S. No. 191 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode for a declaration that the sale deed, dated 29th November, 1965 executed by the father Chinnaswami Gounder in favour of Sampoornammal was not binding o...
K.R. Subramaniam Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Reptd. by the Deputy Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ267
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The writ petition has been filed by one K.R. Subramaniam for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O. Ms. Nos. 264, Home (Cinema) Department dated 5th February, 1982, under the following circumstances:2. On 12th June, 1980, the petitioner preferred an application to the Collector of Periyar District for the grant of a no-objection certificate to locate a touring cinema in R.S. Nos. 39/2 and 39/3 of Peria kodiveri Village in Gobi Taluk. The application was duly published in the notice board of the Collectorate and the concerned Panchayat Union Office in accordance with the Rules. No-objections were received from any person within the prescribed period of 15 days. One Nanjappa Nadar filed an objection after the expiry of the period of 15 days and that was rejected by the Collector, the third respondent herein. The Town Panchayat and the Superintendent of Police did not raise objections to the grant of no-objection cer...
Ramanuia Mudali Vs. M. Gangan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1983
Reported in: II(1984)ACC85
1. This petition coming on for hearing on this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment:2. The defendant is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,000/- by way of damages and for costs.3. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-revision petitioner are the natives of Vazhapandal village. In the plaint the plaintiff-respondent has averred that the defendant-revision petitioner herein has got two acres and 15 cents of land in the suit village. This has been admitted by the defendant-petitioner herein in his evidence. The evidence of P.W. 2 is that he is cultivating the land of the village Munsif on waran basis and that he has to cross the river channel to go to that land and that the said river channel is south of the lands of the defendant-revision petitioner herein. The further evidence of P.W. 2 is that he used to go through the land of the defendant-revision petitioner to reach the river channel to div...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »