Chennai Court December 1984 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.
S. Gandhi Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ160Mad
ORDER1. The petitioner is working as Junior Engineer Grade II, Construction, in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Batalgundu. For a Junior Engineer Grade II to be promoted, one must pass the Account Test held by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the second respondent herein. A person appointed as Junior Engineer Grade II, is given one increment after completion of one year of the appointment and further increments would be given on a regular basis only, on his passing the Account Test. Therefore, the passing of the Account Test is a condition for further prospects either to Junior Engineer Grade II or Junior Engineer Grade I to get increments as well as promotion. 2. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, he appeared for the Account Test Part-I conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. His registration number is 24669. The examination was held on 3rd November, 1980. The petitioner wrote the said test held at O.C.B.M. High School, Madurai. It is the case of the...
M.D. Rajan Vs. I.T.C. Limited, Represented by Its Secretary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ372
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for a declaration that the order of termination dated 16.9.1976 issued by the first defendant is null and void and that the plaintiff shall be deemed to be in continuous employment under the first defendant company with effect from 1.4.1977 and for an injunction against the first defendant restraining it from operating the termination order dated 16.9.1976. On contest by the defendants, the plaintiff failed with regard to the reliefs asked for in the first Court. This result, the first Court arrived at, taking note of the ratio of the Supreme Court in the pronouncement in Vaish College v. Lakshmi Narain (1976) 2 S.C.C. 58 : (1976) L.I.C. 576 : (1976) 2 S.C.R. 1006 : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 888. However on additional Issue No. 2 as to whether the plaintiff's joining the contributory pension fund would entitle him to be in service...
Ganshamadas Girdhardas and ors. Vs. V. Sivaramasubramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad17
Maheswaran, J.1. The relief's prayed for in this application can be extracted in the words of the 14th appellant who has sworn to an affidavit in support of this application. The petitioners pray for orders of this Court directing -(1) the attachment of the property viz., the buildings and structures and the land appurtenant thereto, at No. 77 and 77B, Omalur Main Road, Salem, belonging to the respondents and described in the schedule to the petition, already effected in E. P. 295 of 1979 in C S. 23 of 1964, on the file of the Sub Court, Salem, do continue pending disposal of O. S. A. 22 of 1979 so that suitable orders may be passed at the time of disposal of O. S. A. 22 of 1979; or (2) the respondents herein do furnish security for the amount claimed in O. S. A. 22 of 1979 inclusive of further interest and costs; or (3) the respondents herein be and are hereby restrained not to sell, encumber or otherwise alienate the property described in the schedule to the petition without obtainin...
Dinod Cashew Corporation Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1984
Reported in: [1986]61STC1(Mad)
ORDERChandurkar, C.J. 1. A common question of law which arises in all these writ petitions is, whether the cashewnut and cashew Kernels are the same goods for purposes of section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. These petitions can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners in the several petitions export cashew Kernel after they process raw cashewnut purchased by them. We may take an illustrative case of the assessment of petitioners in W.P. No. 3968 of 1982. They were assessed to sales tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. We may briefly refer to the facts in that petition. 3. For the assessment year 1976-77 the petitioners were assessed on taxable turnover of Rs. 37,93,816.11. At the time of assessment, the purchase of cashewnut and sales turnover of cashewnut shell was found to be as follows : Rs. Ps.1st purchase of cashewnuts .... 28,54,925.24Inter-State purchase of cashewnut .... 5,19,687....
R. Umraomal and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad63
1. These three appeals, W. A. Nos. 349, 350 and 351 of 1983, are against the common judgment rendered in W.P. Nos. 1837, 1836 and 1835 of 1982 respectively by Mohan J. dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants praying for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings in G.O. Ms. No. 68 Revenue dated 11-1-1982, and the notification dated 15-12-1980 made in G.O. Ms. No. 2753, Revenue.2. The father of Umraomal and Jawanthraj, appellants in W. A. 349 and 350 of 1983 respectively, purchased certain buildings in R. S. No. 80 and R. S. No. 882/2 on an extent of 5 grounds and 1030 sq. ft. of Tondiarpet village in the years 1928 and 1931. The Government granted lease of the land on 12-7-1941, on a yearly rent of Rs. 500. They were living with the members of their families in the buildings constructed by them and they have also built certain shops in the ground floor and let them out to certain tenants. But the tenants committed default in the payment of rent which resulted in th...
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administratio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad341
Ratnam, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, Madras (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') is directed against the order in W. P. 2907 of 1976 quashing the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner for the appointment of an Executive Officer in Arulmigu Kalivaradarajar Temple, Kumarakuppam, Valavanur village, Villupuram Taluk, South Arcot Dist., in the exercise of the powers vested in him under S. 45(l) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1954) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The circumstances giving rise to the appeal may be shortly stated. The respondent herein is the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Kalivaradarajar Temple, having been so declared by the judgment of this Court in A.S. No. 157 of 1961, dated 27-11-1963. According to the respondent, he had been in his capacity as such hereditary trustee submitting budgets, dhittam, mainta...
A. Mukyaprana Rao and M. Ebenezer Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ9
ORDERG. Ramanujam, JJ.1. Since the points involved are the same in all these cases, they are dealt with together.2. Writ Appeal Nos. 854 and 855 of 1983 have been filed against the judgment rendered by Nainar Sundaram, J. in Writ Petition No. 1137 of 1980; the first one by the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the second by the 7th respondent therein. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 854 of 1983 sought in Writ Petition No. 1137 of 1980 the issue a Writ of Declaration declaring Clause 2(c) of the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No. 1461, Home (Transport II) dated 26.6.1978 issued by the Tamil Nadu Government under which the ratio of promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officers has been reduced to 1 : 4 from 1 : 1 as between the administrative side and the technical side respectively of the Transport Department as unconstitutional as it contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. That Writ Petition was originally heard by Padmanabhan, J. who by his order dated 2.4.1982 al...
Madhavan Vs. Muniammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ54
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1.Considering the limited scope of the controversy involved, the revisions themselves are taken up for final disposal today.2. The petitioner has preferred cross-objections in regular appeals before the lower appellate Court. The cross-objection relate to the adverse finding of the trial court with reference to the adverse finding of the trial court with reference to the will marked Ex.B-43. The lower appellate Court had directed payment of court-fees on the cross-objections. Hence these revisions.3. It is well settled proposition that with reference to an adverse finding against him, the respondent in an appeal by the opposite party, can take objections to such finding in order to support the decree. Such objections though they may take the formal character of eross-objections are not cross-objections to the decree as such. Order 41, Rule 22(1),, Civil Procedure Code hereinafter referred to as the Code, amply enables the respondent, though he may not have appea...
R. Umraomal and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ252
ORDER1. These three appeals, W.A. Nos. 349, 350 and 351 of 1983, are against the common judgment rendered in with Petitions Nos. 1837, 1836 and 1835 of 1982 respectively by Mohan, J. dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants praying for issuance of a writ of certiorai quashing the proceedings in G.O.Ms. No. 68, Revenue, dated 11.1.1982, and the notification dated 15.12.1980 in G.O.Ms. No. 2753, Revenue.2. The father of Umraomal and Jawantharaj, appellants in W.A. Nos. 349 and 350 of 1983 respectively, purchased certain buildings in R.S. No. 80 and R.S. No. 82/2 of an extent of 5 grounds and 1030 sq. feet of Tondiarpet village in the year 1928 and 1931. The Government granted lease of the land on 12.7.1941 on a yearly rent of Rs. 500/-. They were living with the members of their families in the buildings constructed by them and they have also built certain shops in the ground floor and let them out to certain tenants. But the tenants committed default in the payment of rent which ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sivanandha Mills Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1984
Reported in: (1987)63CTR(Mad)11; [1987]163ITR61(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The following question is sought to be referred in this petition : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the incentive bonus of Rs. 1,28,837 which was made in addition to the regular bonus as per the Payment of Bonus Act should be allowed as a deduction under section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?' 2. Though we have rejected a similar question when it was sought to be referred in T.C.P. No. 554/1983 by an order dated November 26, 1984, annexed herewith (see infra), learned counsel for the Revenue, reargued the matter on the ground that really this expenditure will come under s. 36(1)(ii) of the Act and not under s. 37 of the Act and that question will have to be decided and, therefore, a reference is called for. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. Section 36(1)(ii) has reference to bonus paid under the Bonus Act and incentive bonus or attendance bonus or customary bonus ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »