Chennai Court October 1983 Judgments
N.R. Thirtiverigadam Vs. Kaliannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad112
ORDER1. In these civil revision petitions at the instance of the second defendant in 0. S. No. 955 of 1981 and 0. S No. 956 of 1981. District Munsiff's Court, Gobichettipalayam, directed against the order of dismissal of the applications in I. A. No. 573 of 1982 and I. A. No. 574 of 1982 in 0. S. No. 955Of 1981 and 0. S. No.- 956 of 1981 filed by, the Petitioner under 0. 38 R.' 9 C. P. C., the question that arises for consideration is whether the court below was right in dismissing the applications on the ground that they were not maintainable. The circumstances under which the proceedings arose may be stated as under the respondents in these civil revision Petitions instituted 0. S. No. 955 of 1981 and 0. S. No. 956 of 1981 against the petitioner and others for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7.987/- and Rs. 64511rez-pectively with subsequent interest on the basis of a savings deposit scheme conducted by the Petitioner. The petitioner and others are resisting those suits on several groun...
Tag this Judgment!N. Rajeswari and ors. Vs. S.P. Palaniappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ62
K.B.N. Singh, C.J.1. This Civil Revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode, reversing the order of the Rent Controller (Addl. Dist. Munsif), Erode, dismissing the application of the landlords for eviction of the tenants-respondents.2. The petition for eviction was filed by the admitted landlord, Namachivayam, for the eviction of the respondents under the provisions of Section 10(2)(ii)(a), (b) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), from premises door No. 262 Brough Road, Erode. The said premises was leased out to respondents 1 and 2 on 17th October, 1969, by the landlord Namachivayam, for a period of six years on a monthly rental of Rs. 500/- for running a printing press. The rent was payable on the first of every Tamil Month. On 11th August 1975 the landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 72 of 1975 before the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenants-respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Oomer Vs. the Sub-collector (Appellate Authority Under the Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ417
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. A common question arises for consideration in these two writ petitions. The petitioner herein who is common in both the petitions filed the two applications as against two creditors seeking relief under Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. The said applications were contested by the creditors. Both the Tahsildar, Debt Relief, before whom the applications were filed and the Sub-Collector who is the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that as the petitioner's income exceeds Rs. 4,800/- per annum, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Act. As against the decision of the Sub-Collector Coonoor, the Appellate Authority, the present writ petitions have been filed. The only challenge to the orders is on merits, the petitioner contending that his annual income is less than Rs. 4,800/-, and therefore, he is entitled to the benefits of the Act. However, when the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the creditor, taking advantage of the decisio...
Tag this Judgment!P. Munisamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ466Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed by one Thiru P. Munisamy, who is working as an Amin in the District Court, Madurai and who is also the President of the Tamil Nadu Amins' Association. He seeks the issue of a ceriiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1978 and to quash the same so far as it relates to the time-scale of pay relating to Amins, as entered in item No. 39 at page 136 under the Caption 'Judicial Department' other than High Court and to direct the respondents to refix the petitioner's salary in the time-scale of pay applicable to Senior Bailiffs, as shown in item No. 38 at page 136 under the Caption 'Judicial Department' other than High Court with effect from 1st April, 1978. 2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in his affidavit filed in support of his writ petition, is as follows : The category of employees known as Amins in the Courts situated at Taluk and District Levels are doing the work which is n...
Tag this Judgment!P. Munisamy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secy. to G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ128
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by one Thiru P. Munisamy, who is working as an Amin in the District Court, Madurai and who is also the President of the Tamil Nadu Amins' Association. He seeks the issue of a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1978 and to quash the same so far as it relates to the time-scale of pay relating to Amins, as entered in item No. 39 at page 136 under the Caption 'Judicial Department other than High Court and to direct the respondents to refix the petitioner's salary in the time-scale of pay applicable to Senior Bailiffs, as shown in item No. 38 at page 136 under the Caption 'Judicial Department', other than High Court with effect from 1st April, 1978.2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in his affidavit filed in support of his writ petition is as follows:The category of employees known as Amins in the Courts situated at Taluk and District Levels are doing the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR737(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this reference petition, the Revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no non-disclosure on the part of the assessee of the primary facts relating to the 'deemed dividends' assessable under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and therefore, there was no case for the Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer had assumed jurisdiction under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without having adequate supporting materials to entertain the belief that income had escaped assessment ?' 2. However, we find that, on the facts ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Textile Paper Tube Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR585(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this reference petition under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Tribunal to refer the following two questions for the opinion of this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the surplus amount of Rs. 14,138 in the sales tax account representing excess collections over payments made cannot be treated as the assessee's income and should not therefore, be assessed to tax 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is adopting the mercantile system of accounting especially when the assessee is debiting the said amount as and when it pays sales tax to the Government ?' 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturer and sale of paper cones and allied products used as textile accessories. In the course of assessment proceedings for the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Coimbatore Vs. Estate of Late K.S. Subbanna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR710(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The Revenue seeks a direction in this reference petition to the Tribunal to refer the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that both on the question of jurisdiction and merits, the order under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act deserved to be cancelled ?' as a question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this court. 2. The accountable person filed his return as regards the estate of late K. S. Subbanna Gounder showing the value of the deceased's share in the firm of M/s. Madras Wire Products as Rs. 1,29,625. The accountable person has also sent a balance-sheet of the said firm showing the value of the deceased's share at Rs. 3,79,336. To the balance-sheet the accountable person has appended a note explaining the reason for returning a value of Rs. 1,29,625 as against the balance-sheet value. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, while making the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Race Club Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1983
Reported in: [1985]151ITR675(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. The following three questions relating to the assessment years mentioned hereunder have been referred, at the instance of the assessee, for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction on account of development rebate of Rs. 8,486 and Rs. 56,642, respectively, for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1970-71 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amounts of Rs. 3,42,539 and Rs. 7,22,411 were not includible in the total income of the assessee for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 6,556 incurred by way of legal charges for the assessment year 1971-72 was a properly allowable item of revenue expenditure ?' 2. The circumstances giving rise to the reference under question No. 1 stated above are as under : The assessee is a company limited by guarantee and registered ...
Tag this Judgment!Sakuntala (Died) and ors. Vs. V. Sarangapani Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ336
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 1070 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli, was the original appellant in this second appeal. She died pending the, second appeal and her legal representatives have been brought on record. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was laid for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, dated 6th July, 1966, and for other ancillary reliefs. The plaintiff was the mortgagor and the defendant was the mortgagee. The plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act XXXVIII of 1972. The defendant denied this plea of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed deduction of amounts towards property tax. This Was also denied by the defendant. The defendant claimed that she is entitled to compensation for improvements. On appropriate issues on the pleadings in the case, the first Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act X...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »