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.
Lakshmi Vs. Meenakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad10; (1983)IIMLJ44
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 26 of 1976, Sub-Court, Devakottai, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the order of the District Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai in I.A. 148 of 1980 in A. S. No. 154 of 1977, declining to review the judgment dated 13-12-1979 in so far as the refusal of the relief of future mesne profits is concerned. The petitioner herein instituted O. S. 26 of 1975 against the respondent herein praying for partition and separate possession and future mesne profits in respect of a house bearing door No. 37 in T. S. No. 161 in Ward No. 18 of Karaikudi Municipal Town. Admittedly, this house was owned by Rajammal and on her death leaving behind her three sons, they became, entitled to the house in question and the petitioner purchased an undivided one-third share from the eldest of the sons. The other two sons purported to convey a half share each in the property in favour of the respondent herein ignoring the rights of the vendor...
S. Venkitachalam Iyer Vs. S. Rama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad75; (1983)IIMLJ330
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 99 of 1958, Principal District Munsif's Court, Nagarcoil, which is a Trust, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. Admittedly, the Trust owned two items of properties in survey No. 382/730 and survey No. 382/731 of an extent of .69 cents and 29 cents respectively in Nagarcoil. A lease of these lands was granted by the Trust to one Padakalingam in 1106 (1930) on payment of a rent of Rupees 36 per month, The interest of the lessee was assigned in 1106 (1930) by Padakalingam to Gabriel, who in turn assigned it in favour of one Ramaswami Mudaliar in 1107 (1931) from whom Swami Mudaliar secured a further assignment in 1109 (1933). Swami Mudaliar put up certain buildings and the respondent herein purchased the buildings from Swami Mudaliar in 1119 (1943) on payment of a consideration of Rs. 4,475. Thereafter, in 1120 (1944), the Trust had leased out the properties in favour of the respondent herein fixing the period of lease as six years on a mo...
Selvalammal Vs. Sumathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad294; (1983)2MLJ146
ORDER1. The decree-holder in O. S. No.1355 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Kallakurichi, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent herein is the judgment-debtor. The judgment debtor filed an application I. A. No. 2263 of 1979 under S. 19 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists' Relief Act 4 of 1938, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The preliminary objection taken by the decree holder before the court below to this application by the judgment-debtor was that the judgment-debtor earlier filed a similar application under dismissed on 7-8-1978 and hence, the present application is not maintainable. This objection has been overruled by the court below by the order, subject matter of revision and the court below has directed enquiry into the merits of the application.2. Mr. T. V. Balakrishnan, learned counsel for the decree-holder, submits that the earlier application under S. 19 of the Act was, in fact, preceded by an application under S. 20 for stay and the substantive app...
S. Sathinarayanan Vs. Bhagwandas Bathija Kanyalal and Sons, Salem
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad264; (1983)2MLJ382
ORDER1. The second defendant in O.S.No.503 of 1977, First Additional Sub-Court, Salem is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. That suit was instituted by the respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs.15,525 with subsequent interest and costs against the South India Glass and Enamel Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) by its Managing Director Sri.S.Sathyanarayanan and the petitioner herein (who figured as defendants 1 and 2) on the basis of three hundies Exs A-1 to A-3 dated 4-11-1976 for Rs.5,000 each executed by the company and the petitioner herein, In the written statement filed by the company the borrowing was admitted but it was stated that the petitioner had nothing to do with the borrowing and that he had signed the hundies in his capacity as the managing Director and not in his individual capacity. Further, invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 21 of 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the company prayed that further proceedings as ...
Chemplast Employees Union Vs. the Appellate Authority Under the Indust ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ476
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether an appeal can be maintained before the appellate Authority by the petitioner-union. It is submitted that there are certified Standing Orders between the Management of Chemicals and Plastics India Limited, Mettur Dam and the Workmen. The Management wanted an amendment to modify the Standing Orders and therefore under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, herein after referred to as the 'Act', notice was issued to the Union, namely, the writ petitioner herein Chemplast Employees Union and another union by name Chemplast Operators and Workers Union, Mettur Dam. The certifying Officer passed an order, dated 23rd September, 1980, overruling the objections of the Union and allowed the amendment as prayed for by the Management. Against that order an appeal was preferred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore. One of the points urged was that the Union has no right to prefer ...
Arunachalam Vs. Kesavan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ166
V. Ratnam, J.1. The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Disirict Munsif, Ramanathapuram, dismissing E. A. No. 17 of 1982 in E P. No. 14 of 1982 in O.S. Mo. 36 of 1980 filed under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for stay of execution of the decree in O.S. No. 36 of 1980. On 4th January, 1980, the respondent herein instituted O.S. No. 36 of 1980, District Munsif's Court, Ramanathapuram, for recovery of possession of the building in the occupation of the petitioner and also of Rs. 1,150 towards arrears of rent. According to the case of the respondent, the building in question had been put up five years prior to the date of the suit and had been let out to the petitioner initially for a period of two years on 22nd November, 1975, but that the tenancy continued even thereafter and the petitioner had not paid the rent for the period 1st January, 1978 to 30th November, 1979. A notice dated 27th August, 1979 terminating the tenancy by 30th September, 1979, w...
R. Mohanarangam Vs. the Food Corporation of India, Represented by Zona ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1983
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ139
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner was appointed as Junior Godown Keeper on 19.7.1959 in the Department of Food, under Regional Directorate, Food, Madras. He was transferred to Food Corporation of India in 1965 and promoted as Senior Godown Keeper in 1969. He was promoted as Assistant Manager (Depot) and was placed on probation by order dated 29.10.1977 for a period of one year as per Regulation 15(1) of F.C.I. Staff Regulations, 1971, framed under Section 45 of Food Corporation Act, 1964. As the probation reports were found to be unsatisfactory, he was reverted to the post of Assistant, Grade I (Depot) under Regulation 15(3), by the impugned order dated 30.11.1979 which has resulted in the filing of this writ petition to quash the said order.2. Petitioner submits that apart from Regulation 15, several administrative instructions have been issued regarding probation as per circulars dated 22.4.1967, 31.8.1974, 14.1.1977, 8.3.1979, 5.11.1979 etc, and that when the period of one year exp...
C.H. Kesava Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Mad)147; [1985]156ITR369(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. Both the case relate to the same assessee but for two assessment years. The first relates to the assessment year 1971-72, while the second relates to the assessment year 1972-73. The assessee is the owner of a building called 'Giri Bhavan' bearing Door No. 16, Begam Sahib Street, Madras 2. The ITO estimated the annual letting value of the said building at Rs. 36,000 on the basis of the order of the AAC for the earlier assessment year 1970-71, as against the annual value of Rs. 12,000, returned by the assessee. The assessee appealed and the AAC following the Tribunal's order for the preceding year adopted the monthly letting value of the property at Rs. 1,800 and this was confirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee sought for and obtained a reference of the following questions of law to this court for its opinion : 2. Question for decision in T.C. No. 1352 of 1977 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the c...
Pl. Ct. Sp. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Muthiah Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad215; (1983)IIMLJ426
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24655 due under two promissory notes dated 25-6-1969 Ex. A-1 and 2-9-1969 Exhibit A-2. A sum of Rs.1000 was paid towards the promissory note dated 25-6-1969 and an endorsement was made on 24-11-1969. On 7-4-1972, he executed a fresh promissory note for a sum of Rs. 18,750/-. Which was the total amount due under Exs. A-1 and A-2 with interest up till that date, on the same day identical endorsement were made in Exs. A-1and A-2 to the effect that by execution of the promissory note dated 7-4-1972 the amount due under the promissory note has been discharged. Subsequently the plaintiff herein assigned the promissory note dated 7-4-1972, in favour of one Muthukaruppan chettair. The assigned filed O.S 34 of 1973 for the recovery of the amount due under the note dated 7-4-1972. It appears that the defendant contented in the suit that Muthukaruppan was not a bona fide holder in du...
P. Ramasamy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC72(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a dealer in timber. In the year 1974-75, it was found that he had collected a total sales tax of Rs. 1,066 at 5 per cent on second sales of timber effected to the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board, Thanjavur, in violation of the provisions of section 22. The assessing officer, therefore, levied a penalty of Rs. 1,066, equal to the excess tax collected under section 22. That order levying penalty was challenged before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but without success. The assessee thereafter took the matter before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also upheld the levy of penalty. The order of the Tribunal is now under challenged in this revision. 2. Section 22(1) says that no registered dealer shall make any collection by way of tax or purporting to be by way of tax under the Act except in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Sub-section (2) of section 22 provides ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »