Chennai Court April 1985 Judgments
Prem Nazir Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1985
Reported in: [1986]159ITR182(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This reference application has been filed by the assessee seeking a direction to the Income-tax Tribunal from this court to refer the following three questions for the opinion of this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the firm had not commenced business, especially since one of the businesses of the firm was to acquire commercial properties and the firm had advanced the funds for the purchase of a property (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the deduction of interest could not be allowed on the ground that the applicant had no source of income from business through the firm (3) Whether, on the facts andin the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the disallowance of the interest ?' 2. The assessee is a cine artiste. During the relevant accounting year relating to the assessment year ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kamakshi Ammal, W/O. Late P. Venkatanarayanan Vs. P. Venkatesan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ438
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. The defendant P. Kamakshi Ammal in O.S. No. 9i20 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has filed A.S. No. 710 of 1978 against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1977 in the said O.S. No. 9120 of 1974.2. The plaintiff P. Kamakshi Ammal in O.S. No. 3470 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has filed A.S. No. 770 of 1978 against the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1977 in the said O.S. No. 3470 of 1976.3. Both these suits - O.S. Nos. 9120 of 1974 and 3470 of 1976 were disposed of by a common judgment dated 21.4.1977 by the Court of the learned XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.4. The plaintiff-P. Venkatesan in O.S. No. 9120 of 1974 was examined as P.W. 1. Exs.A-1 to A-21 were filed on behalf of the plaintiff P. Venkatesan, P. Kamakshi Ammal - the defendant in O.S. No. 9120 of 1974 examined herself as D.W.1. D.W.2 Guruswami was also examined on ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Manuel Santharaj Vs. Mrs. Jayarani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ216
ORDERSengottuvelan, J.1. In this matter a decree nisi for divorce was passed on 25.9.1984 providing for six months time for confirmation. The petitioner who is the husband has filed an affidavit on 14.3.1985 stating that six months time had passed since the date of passing of decree nisi and as such the order of divorce will have to be confirmed.2. On a doubt being felt as to whether notice in that application is necessary to the respondent, to clarify that doubt, the matter is posted today. Mr. G.M. Nathan, appearing for the petitioner contends that the procedure laid down under Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act relates to passing a decree for divorce in the first instance by giving six months time for confirmation so as to enable third parties to challenge the decree as one obtained by collusion between the parties and relies on the very Section itself in support of his argument. Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act reads as follows:Section 16: Every decree for a dissolution of ma...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kaliappa Gounder and ors. Vs. Muthuswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Mad24
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The respondent is the plaintiff. The suit for partition had come to be filed by the plaintiff on the following basis. The suit properties of an extent of 14.25 acres in S. Nos. 371, 373 and 374 of Iluppanatham village originally belonged to two sets of owners, namely, one half to Vellayappa and the other half to Angappa, the father of the plaintiff. The undivided interest of the branches of Vellayappa had been sold in favour of the defendants. For the sake of convenient enjoyment the parties have been in possession of distinct portions. But there was no division by metes and bounds.2. The defendants contested the suit stating in substance that there was in fact a partition arrangement entered into and effectuated several years back and only as per the partition, the parties are in possession of specific portions deliniated by permanent ridges and further the defendants h...
Tag this Judgment!E.G. Abdul Dawood Vs. Director of Industries and Commerce and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ399Mad
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the dismissal of the petitioner from service passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the second respondent. The petitioner, a Commerce Graduate, was appointed on 27th September, 1961, as the Secretary to the Talainayar Brick Workers Industrial Co-operative Society in Mayavaram Taluk, after having been selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and undergoing training as Supervisor of Industrial Co-operatives. While the petitioner was discharging his duties in his capacity as Secretary aforesaid, certain charges under Ss. 409 and 477A, I.P.C. were framed against the petitioner and the President in C.C. Nos. 235 and 236 of 1969 in the Court of the Additional First Class magistrate, mayuram, on the audit party detecting shortage in the cash for the supply of bricks effected by the Society. The learned Magistrate found that the President as well as the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Commissioner and Secretary, H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1985
Reported in: (1986)ILLJ244Mad
ORDER1. In this writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has challenged the order of his removal from service. The petitioner was initially recruited for the post of a permanent Sub-Inspector and after completing the training, he was posted as a Probationary Sub-Inspector in the B2 Police Station, Madurai South. Thereafter, he was transferred to other places and finally confirmed in the post of Sub-Inspector on 14th June, 1966. In 1972, the petitioner was promoted to the Deputy Inspector of Police. Subsequently, in 1975, according to the case of the petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police by an order of the third respondent herein in memo No. 105758/RA-1/75 dated 27th June, 1975 and this order was communicated to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai South, in his communication D.C. No. 1296/75 dated 9th May, 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted to Kodaikanal Police Station where he was working till 25th August,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›