Chennai Court March 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.
Natarajan Vs. Nachimuthu Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad39
Natarajan, J. 1. Mohan J. before whom this revision came up for hearing, was of the view that the revision raises a question of law of importance, which needed determination by a Division Bench and consequently, the revision came t6 be posted before this Bench.2. The question referred for consideration is whether it is open to a sub-tenant to deny the title of the landlord in proceedings for eviction taken under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).3. The facts, which are not in controversy, are, as under: The first respondent herein claimed to be the landlord of premises bearing door No. 50A in Udumalai Road, Pollachi and filed R. C. 0. P. No. 48. of 1979 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore, under Ss. 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. He sought eviction of the second respondent herein and the revision petitioner, who were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2 in the petition. The landlord alleged t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.P.R. Rajah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR2(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to this court for its opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's decision is correct in law in holding that No. 2, Venkatesa Mudaliar Street, Madras 81, belongs to the Hindu undivided family only, when the assessee's father had died on July 4, 1970, and material changes in the law had taken place after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in cases of intestate succession and after December 31, 1969, when the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, had modified the Income-tax Act, 1961 (2) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the capital gains on sale of that property be not taxed in the assessee-individual's hands and the interest of the minor sons be not clubbed in the assessee's hands ?' 2. The assessee, Shri K. P. R. Rajah, is an individual deriving income from ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Late C. Seshachalam Chetty. (by Executo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: [1987]163ITR219(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In reference petitions, TCP Nos. 466 to 468 of 1983, the Revenue seeks a direction from this court to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following three questions with reference to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, alone are applicable for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 and subsequent completion of the assessment by the Wealth-tax Officer is barred by limitation of time 2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no material or information for the Wealth-tax Officer for reopening the assessment under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act and in cancelling the assessment as not valid in law 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal was ...
M. Kanda Swamy Pillai Vs. Chinnaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad290
Shanmukhani, J. 1. The motor accident that took place on 22-2-1979 near Pillur Village, south of Ulundurpet no Grand Trunk Road, had given rise to three claim petitions, O.P. Nos. 85, 133 and 137 of 1979 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore. The Tribunal rendered a common judgment in all the three proceedings. The two appeals are directed against the award passed by the Tribunal in O.PS. 85 and 137 of 1979 respectively. The appellant in both the appeals is the owner of the lorry which was involved in the accident and first respondent in the former is the claimant before the Tribunal, while respondents 1 to 7 are the claimants in the latter. The 2nd respondent is the insurance company which ranked as second respondent even before the Tribunal.2. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry MDG 1609, it awarded Rs. 13,300/to the first respondent in C.M.A. 645 of 1980, because his hand was crushed and ultimately his left han...
Narayana Vadivoo Vs. Mohamed Ebrahim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ220
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. The petitioner has filed this revision against the order dt. 6-1-1982 in E.A. No.1141 of 1981 in O.S. No. 163 of 1974, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil. The said execution application was filed to discharge the decree debt under Act 13 of 1980. The case of the petitioner before the lower court is that his annual income is Rs. 2,500/- that he has no immovable property worth Rs. 25,000/- and that his only residential house is worth Rs. 1,800/- Hence, the petitioner claimed benefit of Act 13 of 1980.2. On the other hand, in the counter filed by the respondent before the lower court it is inter alia contended that the petitioner is the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant is his brother. The 1st defendant filed a similar petition under Act 13 of 1980 and it was dismissed. Subsequently, he paid Rs. 200/- and filed petition for adjournment of sale. Now the 2nd defendant has filed this petition in order to drag on the decree-holder from realisin...
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Late C. Seshachalam Chetty.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1984
Reported in: (1985)44CTR(Mad)216
ORDER : Ramanujam, J. - In reference petitions T.C.P. Nos. 466 to 468 of 1983 the revenue seeks a direction from this court to the ITAT to refer the following three questions with reference to asst. yrs. 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-78 :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of s. 17(1)(b) of the WT Act alone are applicable for the asst. yrs. 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and subsequent completion of the assessment WTO is barred by the limitation of time ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no material or information for the WTO for reopening the assessment under s. 17 of reopening the assessment under s. 17 of the WT Act and in cancelling the assessment as not valid in law ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding and had valid materials to hold that the lands ...
Kasturi and Sons Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1984
Reported in: (1984)42CTR(Mad)297; [1985]152ITR541(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. An interesting question relating to the applicability of s. 41(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), with reference to the exercise of an option to reinstate in terms of a policy of aviation insurance leading to the replacement in specie of an aircraft, arises for consideration in this reference under s. 256(1) of the Act. 2. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of publishing a newspaper 'The Hindu'. To ensure quicker and speedier transport and delivery of the newspaper published, it owned and employed a Dakota aircraft insured with the British Aviation Insurance Limited, Calcutta, for Rs. 4,00,000. One of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance was that subject to the terms and conditions and the limits of the policy, the insurance company, as its option, will pay or replace or make good, the accidental loss or damage to the aircraft. Clause (7) of the general conditions of the policy of insurance provided...
Gnanaprakasa Mudaliar and Two Others Vs. B. Anandathandavan and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1984
Reported in: AIR1999Mad312; (1999)IIMLJ398
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by S. Jagadeesan, J.1. The defendants 1, 5 and 6 in O.S. No.152 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram are the appellants herein. The respondents herein had filed the said suit, claiming partition of 2/3rd share. A preliminary decree was passed by the trial court on 31.3.1962. Subsequently a final decree was also passed on 15.4.1964 in I.A.No.828 of 1962. The respondents took possession of the properties on 26.12.1974. So far as items 4 to 8, 15, 17, 25 and 26 of the plaint schedule properties are concerned, because of the pendency of the second appeal which was disposed of in the year 1967, the final decree was passed separately on 15.7.1976 in LA. No. 542 of 1969. The respondents took possession of their share in the above said items 22.9.1976.2. After taking delivery, the respondents filed an application I.A.3183 of1982 for ascertainment of the mesne profits from 25.11.1959 to 22.9.1976. The trial court granted a decree for mesne profits sub...
Dr. Mohammed Ghouse and ors. Vs. K.A. Hameed and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1984
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ329
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The landlords of the premises bearing Door No. 8-A Appasami Mudali Street, Madras-1, are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The first respondent is a tenant under the petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs. 65. According to the case of the petitioners, the first respondent did not even tender or pay the monthly rent from January, 1981 to July, 1981, and that such non-payment of rents for that period was deliberate and the default in such payment was wilful default within the meaning of Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Act XXIII of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adi'). The petitioners further stated that the first respondent had, without the written consent of the petitioners, sublet the entire premises to the second respondent, rendering- the first respondent liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. Alleging that the premises had been, let out to the first ...
R. Jagannatha Chettiar Vs. Swarnambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ6
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner in these civil revision petitions. The premises bearing door No. 34, Ponnappa Mudali St., Madras 7 belongs to him. One Duraikannu, the husband of the respondent in these civil revision petitions, was originally a tenant in occupation of the premises and after his death, the respondent became a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 47.50, the tenancy being according to the English calendar month from the 1st to the end of every month. The landlord has a daughter and she is living in a rented premises in Mannadi with her husband. Stating that she had been asked to vacate the premises in her occupation in a month's time and claiming that the landlord or his daughter does not occupy any other building of their own and that the landlord bona fide required the premises in the occupation of the tenant for his daughter's occupation, the landlord filed H.R.C. No. 3042 of 1980 before the Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »