Chennai Court September 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.
V.P. Hashumal, Sole Proprietor: Hashumals and anr. Vs. Sri Bombay Halw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ200
Padmanabhan, J.1. This original side appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 in C.S. No. 61 of 1975 which is a suit for partition on the file of this Court against the final decree passed by Shanmukham, J. on 30th November, 1979.2. The suit for partition happened to be filed by the respondents-plaintiffs in the following circumstances. The suit property is an extent of 9 grounds and 33 sq. ft in Mount Road with a building thereon known as Motimahal. The property originally belonged to the Kumararaja of Venkatagiri. On 23rd June, 1972, plaintiffs I to 3, defendants 1 and 2 and one Auto and Hardware Store purchased the property from the Kumararaja of Venkatagiri under the sale deed dated 23rd June, 1972. The total sale consideration was Rs. 3,50,000, Towards the sale consideration, the first plaintiff paid Rs. 70,037, the second plaintiff paid Rs. 45,515, the third plaintiff paid Rs. 46,816, the first defendant paid Rs. 55,918, the second defendant paid Rs. 57,776 and the Auto and Ha...
The Management of Pithavadian Partners, Rept. by Its Managing Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ26
ORDERMohan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case, is whether a firm of Architects would be governed by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Under Section 1(3)(b) of the said Act, it is stated as follows-It shall apply to-(b) every shop or establishment within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in relation to shops and establishments in a State, in which ten or more persons are employed, or were employed, on any day Of the preceeding twelve months.2. In this State it is the Tamil Nadu Shops and establishments Act that is in force in relation to the shops and establishments. There is a direct ruling of Srinivasan, J., in M/s. L.M. Chitale and Son by sole surviving partner S. L Chitale v. The Commissioner of Labour, Chepauk, Madras and Ors., I.L.R. : (1964)1MLJ379 holding that the Shops and Establishments Act will not apply to the firm of Architects. That decision has been relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in ...
C. Vadiappan and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ96
Ramanujam, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Ordinance IV of 1983 which seeks to amend the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 3937 in certain respects.2. All the petitioners herein are persons who had been granted the privilege of supplying by wholesale arrack or liquor under Section 17-C of the Prohibition Act read with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Supply by Wholesale) Rules, 1981 from 16th July, 1981 till 31st March, 1983. They had applied for renewal of their licences in time. Since no orders had been passed on their applications for renewal, the period of their licences should be deemed to have been extended for a period of two months from the date of expiry, i. e., till 31st May, 1983.3. At that stage, the Tamil Nadu Ordinance IV of 1983 was promulgated by the Governor on 27th May, 1983 amending Section 17-C by inserting a Sub-section (1-A) and also inserting a new section, namely, Section 22-B in the Prohi...
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd., Erode Vs. Appellate Collector of Cus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1983
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT3(Mad)
ORDER1. The facts leading to the writ petition are as under : The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of paper/boards. As per the international trade practice, in the paper industry and as per the Indian Standards Specifications, the ream/reel weight of paper and paper-board sold is inclusive of the weight of the wrapping paper. In other words, the weight of ream/reel is the combined weight of the packed paper as well as the wrapping paper. This convention has been accepted by the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India, for supplies under Rate Contract also and the chargeable weight of the paper is always inclusive of the weight of the wrapping paper. 2. Till May 1972, the excise duty on wrapping paper and the paper packed in such wrapping paper was being collected at the rate applicable to the packed paper. The paper mills were also realising the duty on wrapper and packed paper on this basis from their customers. However, with effect from 1-6-...
Dosky Machado Vs. Francis Gomes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ42
G. Ramanujam, J.1. These two matters have been posted before us on an order of reference, dated 19th November, 1981, passed by Mohan. J.2. For the purpose of the determination of the question involved, we will refer to the facts of the case in C.R.P. No 3314 of 1981. The petitioner herein, who is the landlord, filed an application R.C.O.P. No. 80 of 1979 for eviction of the respondent on certain grounds The application for eviction was posted in the list. Since the respondent-tenant remained ex parte the Rent Controller has passed an ex parte order of eviction. Thereafter, after a lapse of some time, the respondent filed a petition I.A. No 7 of 1981 to set aside the ex parte order of eviction which was opposed by the petitioner-landlord . The Rent Controller, however, passed, an order setting aside the ex parte order of eviction on condition that the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 50 as costs on or before 30th January, 1981, and that on failure, the petition for setting aside the ex part...
R. Mayaperuaml and anr. Vs. Azhagappan Nadar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ422
S. Padmanabhan, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in these Letters Patent Appeals, which are directed against the common judgment of a single Judge of this Court in A.S. Nos. 473 of 1973 and 282 of 1974 is whether the Azhakianayagi Amman temple situated in S. No. 14020 in Neendakara B village, Agasteeswaram taluk, Kanyakumari district, is a public temple and whether the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short the Act) apply to the said temple. Since that is the only question that has been argued before me, it is unnecessary to refer to the detailed facts of the case except to state that the suit was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for a declaration that the said temple was a private temple and would fall outside the purview of the Act and also to set aside the order passed by the statutory authorities holding that the said temple was a public temple and would attract the provisions of the Act. O.S. No. 42 of 1971 was orig...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›