Chennai Court July 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.
Kulsumbai Mulla Jeewajee Vs. Madras Marine Private Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ399
ORDERM. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2039 of 1982 has been filed by the landlady and C.R.P. No. 371 of 1982 has been filed by the tenant against the orders of the appellate authorities in different appeals filed by the landlady and tenant as against the common order passed by the Rent Controller in H. R. C. No. 2541 of 1979.2. The landlady, who is the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2039 of 1982 and respondent in C. R P. No. 371 of 1982 filed the eviction petition on three grounds; viz., wilful default in the payment of rent under Section 10(2) (i), acts of waste to the building under Section 10(2) (iii) and requirement of the premises for the landlady's partnership business order Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.3. The learned Rent Controller gave finding on the first two grounds against the landlady, but found the third ground, viz., the requirement of the building for the landlady's...
The Associated Traders and Engineers Ltd., by Its Director Incharge Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ251
ORDERFakkir Mohammed, J.1. The tenant/respondent in R.G.O.P. No. 80 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore, is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein, who is the landlady filed R.C.O.P. No. 80 of 1978 for eviction of the tenant/petitioner herein on three grounds under Sections 10 () (iii), 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (ii) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition was resisted by the petitioner herein stating that none of the grounds is real or true and that the petition should be dismissed. The learned Rent Controller found all the three grounds against the landlady and dismissed the eviction petition. On appeal by the landlady to the appellate authority, the appellate authority, while confirming the order of the Rent Controller on the ground of different user of the demised building, reversed the findings of the Rent Controller on the grounds of act of waste and w...
A. Ganesan Vs. Amaravathiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ505
M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. The revision petition has been filed by the tenant, who is an advocate at Wallaja, against the eviction order granted by the appellate Court in C.M.A. No. 77 of 1979 reversing the dismissal of the eviction petition in H.R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ranipet.2. The landlady, who is the respondent herein, filed the eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, on the ground of personal occupation. The petition was opposed by the petitioner herein stating that the petition is motivated since the prior proceedings initiated by the landlady for evicting the tenant proved futile. The learned Rent Controller, on the evidence before him, gave the finding that the requirement of premises for personal occupation is not true and bona fide. According to the revision petitioner, the grounds on which the eviction petition was dismissed are cogent and convincing. But on appeal by the landlady the order of the Ren...
T.C. Sivaji Sahile Vs. K. Kaliaperumal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ26
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. In these revision petitions, it is contended that once a finding is given that the sufficient cause shown does not exist and that delay which has occasioned cannot be condoned, the Rent Tribunal had no jurisdiction to still condone the delay on extraneous factors or out of sympathetic considerations, as claimed by it.2. Mr. Yamunan, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, submits that in the light of the decision in Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Limited : [1962]2SCR762 , proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In these matters, it is Rule 14 of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Act XXV of 1955, which is akin to Section 5 of the Limitation Act that has been invoked. In the said decision, it was held that, if sufficient cause is not proved, then nothing further has to be done and the application has to be dismissed on that ground alone. The...
H.V. Venugopal Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1983
Reported in: [1985]153ITR376(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee is running a shroff shop and pawnbroking. He personally undertook reconstruction work of his residential house during the years 1968 to 1970. The original assessment for he year 1971-72 was completed on December 13, 1972. During that assessment, he did not disclose the cost reconstruction in respect of the said house. In the wealth-tax proceedings for the assessment year 1972-73, it came to light that the value of the assessee's residential house was more than the admitted value of Rs. 50,000 and the Inspector of the Department was direct to inspect the house and give a valuation report. The Inspector inspected the house on January 19, 1974, and made enquiries. At that time, the assessee pointed out that he had purchased on old house in 1947 and reconstructed the same in 1956, the expenses the reconstruction having been advanced by the assessee's wife's grandfather. However, the Inspector's report revealed that the municipal authorities sanctioned the reco...
Estate of T.P. Ramaswami Pillai Vs. A. Mohd Yousfuf and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1983
Reported in: AIR1983Mad280; (1983)IIMLJ319
ORDER1. In this civial revision petition at the instance of the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 72 of 1981, II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the only question that arise for consideration is whether the courts below were right in negativing the claim of the petitioner to the benefits of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenant's Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the about 2 grounds and 2027 sq.ft situate in R.S.No.1693/1 in Thulasi Naicken Street, Perambur Baracks, Madras belonged to one Mohamed Ismail Sahib. This property was let out to one T.P.Ramaswami Pillai and on his death, th epetitioner claimded to have the deceased Remaswami Pillai, Mohamed Ismail Sahib dies on 29-12-1961, and the respondents issued a notice on 8-12-1980 terminating the 31-3-1981 and sought the ejectment of the petitioner. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, the plea the petitioner filed M.P.2000 of 1981, in Ejectment Suit No. 72 of 1981, under Sec 9 of the Act praying for adirect...
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1983
Reported in: [1984]145ITR461(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1 . The assessee seeks a direction from this court, directing the Tribunal to refer the following three questions:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that urban land tax levied on the assessee during the year is not allowable but that only the amount paid during the year is deductible under Section 24(1)(vii) in computing income from property ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income from hire charges of printing machinery and motor vehicles derived by the assesseeis assessable under the head 'Other sources' and not under the head 'Business' ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sums of Rs. 4,59,396 and Rs. 2,862 representing interest provided in respect of moneys borrowed by the assessee and written back in the accoun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›