Chennai Court November 1984 Judgments
Juliet Vasantha Vs. Antony Marimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1613
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1. This is a revision petition in a matter of maintenance filed by the wife.2. She filed C.C. 224 of 1980 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli, for maintenance from her husband on the ground that she has been taken to her parents house by her husband and that thereafter he started neglecting her. The husband resisted her claim by stating that the wife has deserted the conjugal house on her own initiative and that he is prepared to take her back and maintain in the conjugal house. The wife then agreed to come and live with her husband provided that they live separately from the husband's parents. The husband did not agree to such a course on the plea that his income was not sufficient and that he was depending on his parents for resources.3. The trial Magistrate held that the wife was entitled to maintenance, since the husband was not prepared to maintain her in a house free from vexatious by her in-laws. As far as the amount of maintenance is...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. N. R. Gopalakrishanan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD819(Mad)
ORDER1. These two appeals, filed by the department, involve a common question for consideration. They are, therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. Shri N. R. Gopalakrishnan is the karta of the assessee-HUF. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, he was partner in the firms of EASSN Somasundaram Chettiar & Co. and Madurai Mercantile Mart representing his HUF and received the following amounts as salary for the services rendered by him to them :Sl. No.Name of the firmSalary received in assessment year 1979-80Salary received in assessmentyear 1980-81 Rs.Rs.1. EASSN Somasundaram Chettiar & Co. 3,0003,0002. Madura Mercantile Mart 910770 Total 3,9103,7703. The ITO was of the view that a firm has no separate legal entity from its partners and that the salary received by the partner was, in reality, only a mode of division of profits of the firm. He, therefore, held that the aforesaid amounts were includible in the income of the assessee-HUF.4. H...
Tag this Judgment!Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: (1985)ILLJ63Mad
Shanmukahm, J. 1. The same point is involved in all these proceedings and also the petitioner and the appellant are the same. Hence, a common order. 2. W.A. No. 477 of 1978 is directed against W.P. No. 3797 of 1978. W.A. No. 78 of 1982 is directed against W.P. 2316 of 1979 and W.A. No. 654 of 1982 is against W.P. No. 1991 of 1980. In W.P. No. 3797 of 1978 the appellant sought to quash the order of the Government, the sole respondent therein, who rejected the appellant's application for grant of exemption from the payment of bonus for the year 1976-'77 (from 1st February, 1976 to 31st January, 1977). In W.P. No. 2316 of 1979, the order of the Government, the sole respondent therein refusing to grant exemption to the appellant from the payment of bonus for the year ending 31st January, 1978 is challenged; so too, in W.P. No. 1991 of 1980, the order of the Government refusing to grant exemption to the appellant from the payment of bonus for the year ending 31st January, 1979 is sought to ...
Tag this Judgment!Yeswant Hiralal Veecumsee Vs. Usha Kumar Betala and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad272
Gokulakrishnan, J. 1. The applicant in Appln. No. 1420 of 1982 in C.S. 547 of 1982 and 1421 of 1984 in C.S. 577 of 1982 is the appellant in both the appeals.2. The short facts of the case are as follows: One Usha Kumari Betala has filed C.S. 547 of 1982 on the file of this Court against the 18th defendants of whom the appellant herein is the first defendant, for a declaration that the partnership firm Sapphire stands dissolved from 27-7-1982, and for directing the defendants to render true and proper accounts of the business of the partnership firm Sapphire till the firm is wound up and also for directing the taking of accounts of the partnership business, determining the valuation of the properties and assets including the goodwill of the firm Sapphire, determination and distribution of the liabilities to creditors and net proceeds amongst the partners. The 18th defendant in C.S. 547 of 1982 filed C.S. 577 of 1982, on the file of this Court against 20 defendants, of whom the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Arya Vaidya Pharmacy (Cbe) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR630(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. We are not satisfied that any question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. We dismiss this petition accordingly with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500. ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V.S. Sarma Vs. Accommodation Controller, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad1
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this appeal, the correctness of the decision of Mohan, J. in W.P. 496 of 1978 has been questioned by the appellant. The appellant was a Central Government Employee and he was given accommodation by the Accommodation Controller. Subsequently the owner of the premises, which was allotted to the appellant, applied for the release of the building on various grounds. The grounds urged by the owner of the premises were found tenable by the Accommodation Controller and he passed an order releasing the building and calling upon the petitioner appellant to vacate the premises occupied by him in pursuance of the order of allotment made by the Accommodation Controller. Thereafter the appellant approached the Accommodation Controller with a request for alternative accommodation. That was rejected on the basis of an order of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1711 dated 16th July 1976, by which the Government had changed the priority in the allotment of the buildings by the Accommoda...
Tag this Judgment!Appu Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad278
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The only question raised in the app eal, which is directed against the order of the learned single Judge is whether, the delay in the publication of the substance of the notification under S. 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, vitiates the proceedings for acquisition of land. The notification under S. 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 2-6-1982 in the Gazette but the substance of the said notification was published at a convenient place only on 25-6-1982. The contention that the proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act was vitiated on account of this delay in publishing the substance of the notification was not accepted by the learned single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the same was premature.2. An appeal against this order has been admitted. When the matter came up for confirmation of stay in C. M. P. No. 17290 of 1983, the learned Government Pleader has brought, to our notice a decision in Deepak Pa...
Tag this Judgment!D.R. Devarajan and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1614
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. The petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. 'No. 175 of 1984 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur. The Accused I 52, 13, 39 and 3 are the petitioners in these petitions respectively.2. The respondent the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Vellore, has filed this Criminal prosecution against 86 persons for offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges relate to the grant of loans and advances by the Government to the ryots in Tiruppathur Taluk of North Arcot District under the Intensive Manuring Scheme and Groundnut Export Orientation Programme between 1968 and 1972. The loans were granted hi the form of chemical fertilizers on ! the understanding that the value of the same should be repaid in a lump sum at the time of the harvest. Similar loans were also advanced . in cash for growing veg...
Tag this Judgment!Dexter S. Anthony Vs. June P. Anthony and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ200
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. The reference in the above Diary No. 388 of 1984 raises an interesting question relating to the matrimonial jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner presented an application under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for the relief of divorce of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent. In paragraph 6 of the application it is stated as follows:After the marriage the petitioner and the respondent lived and cohabitated as husband and wife first at Little Mount, Saidapet, Madras, for five years, and then at Gunidy, Madras, for three years and lastly at Kennedy Valley, Moosaranpet, Madras-600 091, until February, 1983, when the respondent left the petitioner in the following circumstances.2. Moosaranpet is within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Chengalpattu. According to the office note the petition for divorce has to be filed in the District Court within whose jurisdiction both the parties last resided. The office also points out two confl...
Tag this Judgment!Mookan Ambalam Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ430
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner is a creditor who had advanced certain sums of money to the third respondent on the mortgage of his property. The third respondent filed an application on 14.5.1980 before the second respondent claiming relief under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976 on the ground that he is an agricultural labourer entitled to the benefits of that Act. The said application was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the third respondent was not an agricultural labourer and therefore, he cannot claim the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976. The contention was accepted by the second respondent who rejected the application on the ground that the third respondent being not an agricultural labourer, cannot claim the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976. As against the said order rejecting his application the third respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent had upheld the order of the second respondent holding that the third respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »