Chennai Court April 1985 Judgments
Gundaleri Bus Service (P) Ltd., by Its Mg. Director, Nataraja Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1985
Reported in: II(1986)ACC96; (1986)1MLJ208
ORDERSengottuvelan, J.1. This appeal is filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Arcot at Vellore in M.A.C T.O.P. 19 of 1978. The facts of the case can be stated thus: Narasimhan, the first respondent herein, was a passenger in the bus MDJ 5353 belonging to the first appellant herein, on 16th September, 1975. The bus TRN 170 belonging to the second respondent herein, dashed against the bus MDJ 5353 at the rear side on 16th September, 1975 as a result of which, the first respondent had sustained injuries. The first respondent filed MACT OP No. 19 of 1975 claiming compensation against the appellants and second respondent herein. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, came to the following conclusions: (1) that the accident on 16th September, 1975 had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus TRN 170 belonging to the second respondent herein; (2) that the first respondent herein is entitled to compensation ...
Tag this Judgment!Nellai Metal Rolling Mills (P) Ltd., Through Its Managing Director Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ370
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendant company in O.S. No. 103 of 1978 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. Though the controversy raised has got mostly the tinge of legality, yet, the necessary facts of the case have got to be set out. The plaint proceeds as follows:The plaintiff carries on chit fund business in Tirunelveli Town. The defendant company enrolled as subscriber No. 34 in respect of the chit registered under M.C. No. 625/13. The capital was Rs. 25,000 and the subscription was Rs. 625 per month to be paid in forty instalments. The chit commenced on 15.8.1983 and the date of the termination of the chit was 15.11.1976. The defendant company, at the sixth instalment on 17.1.1974 bid and became the prized subscriber and collected the prize amount on 11.2.1974 and a chit promissory note was executed by the then Managing Director as well as another Director of the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniammal Vs. S. Periasamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ156
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The only question which has been argued and which arises in this revision petition is whether the Execution Petition filed on 11th July, 1983 by the decree-holder is barred by limitation.2. A decree directing the defendant to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit property was passed in O.S.No. 155 of 1963 by the District Munsif's Court, Erode on 27th August, 1964. This decree was confirmed by the appellate Court when A.S.No.161 of 1965 filed by the defendant was dismissed on 21st December, 1967. S.A.No. 826 of 1969 filed by the defendant was also dismissed on 23rd December, 1971. A petition under Order 21, Rules 22 and 35, C.P.C for execution of the decree was filed on 11th July, 1983.3. Before the executing Court, an objection was raised that the decree-holder was not entitled to execute the decree beyond the period of 12 years from the date of the decree, which according to the judgment-debtor should be taken as 27th August, 1964, which is the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Appavoo Nadar Vs. Chellian Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ179
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 15 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kuzhithurai, is the appellant in this appeal. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The suit was laid for specific performance of an agreement of sale or, in the alternative, for recovery of the sum of Rs. 80,000/-. The allegations on the basis of which the plaintiff wanted the reliefs may be set out as follows: On 18.5.1976, the first defendant orally agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. In pursuance of the said agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in cash on 18.6.1976. He also paid another sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 21.6.1976 by a draft as per Pay Order No. 1028 of the Union Bank of India, Marthandam. The said draft was encashed by the first defendant on 23.6.1976. As the plaintiff's daughter was proposed for marriage to the first defendant's son, the plaintiff did not get the sale deed executed immediately. After the...
Tag this Judgment!inderchand JaIn Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1985
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC220
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. Two grounds are raised in this writ petition for the issue of a writ habeas corpus with reference to the detention of a person by name Dhanmal Jain under Ss. 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii), Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (for short COFEPOSA Act). The writ petitioner is brother of the detenu. On the basis of certain information on 19-10-1983, the detenu was intercepted in Arakonam railway station and he was found to be in possession of gold bars with foreign markings valued at Rs. 3,41,000/-. He is said to be a carrier. On 23-8-1984 an order of detention was made under the COFEPOSA Act. However, since the detenu was absconding he could not be detained immediately. He was arrested and detained under the COFEPOSA Act on 23-11-1984. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended firstly that the grounds of detention included among the documents the show cause notice issued by the Customs authorities under the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Durairajulu Naidu Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitabl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1989Mad60
Mohan, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant before me. He filed. O.S. No. 313 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, praying for declaration that the Institution 'Sri Ramar Madalayam' is a private institution and not a public one. There has been a further prayer to modify or cancel the order passed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowment Board dated 1-11-1974 in A.P. 83 of 1973.2. The allegations as averred in the plaint are as under: -- One Veeraswami Naidu, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff, executed a will dated 26-9-1899 and a codicil dated 4-7-1900. He founded the Private place of worship known as 'Sri Ramar Madalayam' in Naciar Koil Road at Woriyur in Tircuchy Town as his own private property. The plaintiff is in management of the same as per the terms of the will The said Sri Ramar Madalayam, is not a religious institution coming within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable En...
Tag this Judgment!D. Appavoo Prop. Chandra Bus Service, Thanjavur Vs. the Regional Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ534Mad
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. In this appeal, the decision of Mohan, J. in W.P. No. 2402 of 1976 holding that the appellant concern is not entitled to the benefit of S. 16(1)(b) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Central Act 19 of 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act), is questioned. 2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings are not in dispute. A transport company by name S. D. Lingam Transport was owned by one Dharmalinga Mudaliar, the father of the appellant herein. The said firm was operating eight buses. There was a partition between Dharmalinga Mudaliar and two sons in that partition, two buses with their route permits were allotted to Dharmalinga Mudaliar and three buses with their route permits were allotted to each of the two sons of Dharmalinga Mudaliar. The appellant, as already stated, is one of the sons of Dharmalinga Mudaliar to whom three buses with their route permits had been allotted and he continued to operate the three buses on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Conveyor Equipment Company (P) Ltd. Vs. the Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: [1986(52)FLR256]; (1986)IILLJ22Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. in Writ Petition No. 627 of 1976 holding that the establishment of the appellant is not a new establishment so as to have the benefit of the non-applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act under S. 16(1)(b). The circumstances under which the said writ petition was filed by the appellants may briefly be noted. One Messrs Veekay Engineering Industries a firm of partnership was carrying on business as technical consultants and designers. It had also an engineering establishment wherein they were engaged in fabrication and manufacture of structural and other mechanical engineering products including conveyor belts. On 10th November, 1969 they closed the said engineering division and confined their activities to rendering service as technical consultants and designers. The factory workers and staff who were employed in the engineering division...
Tag this Judgment!Conveyor Equipment Company (P) Limited Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ267
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. in Writ Petition No. 627 of 1976 holding that the establishment of the appellants is not a new establishment so as to have the benefit of the non-applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act under Section 16(1)(b). The circumstances under which the said writ petition was filed by the appellants may briefly be noted. One Messrs. Veekay Engineering Industries a firm of partnership was carrying on business as technical consultants and designers. It had also an engineering establishment wherein they were engaged in fabrication and manufacture of structural and other mechanical engineering products including conveyor belts. On 10th November, 1969 they closed the said engineering division and confined their activities to rendering service as technical consultants and designers. The factory workers and staff who were employed in the engineering d...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Industries Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)172; [1987]166ITR35(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following four questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,582 spent on the provision of coffee, cool drinks and sometimes meals also to customers cannot be viewed as an 'entertainment expenditure' and, therefore, the disallowance made in this regard was not called for (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the capital gains arising out of the sale of share in (i) M/s. Indian Motor Parts and Accessories Ltd. and (ii) M/s. Sundaram Private Limited, the provisions of section 52(2) could not be invoked for adopting the fair market value in the place of sale price, since the Income-tax Officer had not established that the price received was more than the one disclosed i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »