Chennai Court July 1985 Judgments
Rasu Pillai Vs. the Addl. Tahsildar (Kudiyiruppu), Mayiladuthurai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ390
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition claims that he was an occupant of a kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971 (Act XL of 1971), hereinafter referred to as the Act. On 19th June, 1971 he applied for the kudiyiruppu patta, seeking determination of the question as to whether he was in such occupation or not. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist cultivating nanja lands of about 4.13 acres belonging to the 4th respondent as a tenant and further he is occupying a site measuring 7 cents in S. No. 108 in Mannampanthal vattam, Mayiladuthurai taluk, and the superstructures put up thereon, both belonging to the 4th respondent. The petitioner would characterise his occupation of this site of an extent of 7 cents as occupation of a kudiyiruppu within the meaning of the Act. The 4th respondent contested the case of the petitioner, stating inter alia that the demise was not only of th...
Tag this Judgment!Pachaiammal (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Sri Sarangapaniswami Devasthanam K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ101
K. Shanmukham, J.1. The only point that falls for determination in this Second appeal is whether the endowment made under Ex.A-1 is a Hindu Charitable Endowment within the meaning of Section 3 of Act XXII of 1959.2. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 14 of 1974 Sub Court, Kumbakonam, came forward with the said suit for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department dated 23.5.1967 in O.A. No. 9 of 1964 and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants viz., Sri Sarangapaniswami Devas-thanam and Commissioner H.R. and C.E. Department, from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the property referred to in Ex.A-1. On the ground that the endowment is a Hindu Charitable Endowment, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. framed a scheme at the instance of the 1st respondent herein in O.A. No. 9 of 1964. It is unnecessary to refer to the particulars therefor for the disposal of this second appeal. On the strength of the scheme so fram...
Tag this Judgment!Union Leather Company Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Periamet Asses ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1985
Reported in: [1987]66STC277(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of V. Ramaswami, J., dated 5th September, 1979, in W.P. No. 3528 of 1979. The learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's writ petition in limine stating that it being a tax matter involving both questions of fact and law, the petitioner before him will have to pursue his remedy provided under the Act first before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The appellant challenged in the writ petition an order of the respondent dated 19th July, 1979, passed under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). 3. The facts relating to the matter briefly are the following : 4. The petitioner is a dealer in hides and skins and as such used to purchase raw hides and skins from various places in the State of Tamil Nadu and process the same into dressed hides and skins and thereafter used to sell locally as well as outside. For the assessment year 1973...
Tag this Judgment!Lily Thomas Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad290
Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The appellant who is a practising advocate in the Supreme Court of India as well as in this Court, had challenged in W.P. 105 of 1984, the constitutional validity of the provisions of S. 12B of the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries Act 1951 (Tamil Nadu Act XX of 195 1) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The substantive part of S. 12-B of the Act was first introduced by the Tamil Nadu Payment of Salaries (Second Amendment) Act 1975 and which has been amended from time to time, reads today as follows: -Section 12-B. Pension : There shall be paid a pension of two hundred and fifty rupees per mensem to every person who after the 15th day of Aug. 1947, had been or is a Member of the legislative Assembly or of the Legislative Council or of both, for one term.'There is an explanation to this section. Cls. (a) and (b) of the said explanation give the meaning of the words 'Member of the Legislative Assembly' and they take into account the fact that some parts of the former S...
Tag this Judgment!K. Neelakantan Vs. T.K. Adimoolam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1985
Reported in: 1986CriLJ1807
ORDERSengottuvelan, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing the prosecution in C. C. No. 49 of 1985 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chingleput. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:2. The petitioner-accused in the case before the lower court is the proprietor of one Neilgan Agencies manufacturing grinders in the trade name Janee Grinder. According to the complainant, the accused after receipt of a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant on behalf of his son's firm Ravi and Co., delivered eight grinders to Ravi & Co., on 24th Mar. 1982 and 11th June 1982 through his clerk and agent Rajendran. The said grinders were not sold and the complainant respondent pressed for the return of the money advanced, since the business was wound up. Seven days prior to 24th Mar. 1983 the petitioner met the respondent at Chingleput District Court canteen and represented to him that he will take back the available six grinders and pay a sum of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Madurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1985
Reported in: (1987)IILLJ59Mad
1. The only question which arises in this appeal in this appeal is whether, having regard to provisions of S. 7(2)(f) of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936 hereinafter referred to as the Act, the employer-appellant was entitled to adjust the sum of Rs. 600.35 towards the dues of Rs. 983.46, which according to the employer, were due from the employee, as advance paid on behalf of the employee to a house building association.2. It is not in dispute that the employee second respondent resigned from the service in October, 1975. Since the employer did not pay his salary for September, 1975, Rs. 403.42, and for 15 days in October, 1975 Rs. 196.93, in all totalling Rs. 600.35, the employee filed an application under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai.3. The defence of the employer was that the employer was to receive a sum of Rs. 983.46, as balance of the advance paid on behalf of the employee for the purposes of building a house b...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›