Chennai Court January 1986 Judgments
Govindarajulu and Etc. Vs. Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad188; (1987)IIMLJ243
ORDER1. Petitionr in W.P. No. 3573 of 1981 clains to be the owner of premises No.41. south Fort Street, Vridhachalam and that it is worth Rso.150 lakhs. He claims as follows :On 2-6-1981, he received an order of eviction purporting to be one under R.5 of the rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1960; calling upon him to remove the propert) within seven days from the date of the service of the notice, as possession of it had been already taken in pursuance of the eviction proceedings taken under S. 3(1) of the Act; failing which action would be taken to remove and dispose it off in public action. The portion mentioned therein measures 22 X 28. At the bottom of this notice dated 30-5-1981. Form A notice prescribed under R.3 (b) and issued under S.8 of the Act, fixing 6-6-1981 as the date of enquiry of verifying whether the occupation of the public premises is unauthorized occupation, and that all of those who are interested are to at...
Tag this Judgment!Govindarajulu and ors. Vs. Assistant Divisional Engineer, H. and R.W. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1986
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ243
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 5373 of 1981 claims to be the owner of premises No. 41, South Fort Street, Vridhachalam and that is worth Rs. 1.50 Lakhs. He claims as follows : On 2.6.1981, he received an order of eviction purporting to be one under Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1960; calling upon him to remove the property within seven days from the date of the service of the notice, as possession has been already taken in pursuance of the eviction proceedings taken under Section 3(1) of the Act; fixing 6.6.1981 as the date of enquiry for verifying whether the occupation of the public premises is unauthorised occupation, and that the competent authority will hold an enquiry at Highways Compound, Vridhachalam, and that all those who are interested are to attend the said enquiry. Particulars in the notice were partially filled up. Before this notice, no communication of any kind was ever served upon ...
Tag this Judgment!V.T.V. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. T.P.T. Perumal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ480
K. Shanmukham, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the petitioner. He claimed protection under Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 in the execution proceedings initiated by the decree-holder In E.P. No. 387 of 1982 in as. No. 897 of 1979. The learned District Munsif held that the petitioner has not proved that he is entitled to the benefits' adumbrated under the Act and therefore ordered the execution as prayed for by the decree-holder. Hence, this revision.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would refer to a certificate according to which his three immovable properties would be worth about Rs. 7,000 and also his counter statement stating that he owns property worth Rs. 7,000 only and that he is eking out his livelihood as a cootie, immediately it is relevant to point out that the petitioner herein had not disclosed his income as a coolie. This apart except producing a certificate marked as Ex. B1, dated 23.3,1983, the petitioner himself has not gone into the witness box. This is enough for the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Mad)51; [1986]159ITR646(Mad)
Chandurkar, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,69,218 being the surtax paid under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, is an admissible deduction in computing the assessee's income from business ?' 2. The assessment year in question is 1971-72 relevant to the accounting year ended on March 31, 1971. For this assessment year, the company claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,69,218 representing the amount of surtax paid by it in the computation of its profits liable for income-tax. The admissibility of this deduction by an additional ground was raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who negatived the claim on the ground that the surtax paid was not expenditure incidental to the carrying on of the business. 3. The matter was taken to the Tribunal. A similar question was already before the Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!The Special Officer of the Management of T.U.C.S. Ltd., Madras-5 Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ225Mad
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These Writ Appeals are against a common order in Writ Petitions Nos. 1742 and 1743 of 1982. The first- respondent in the Writ Petitions is the appellant in the Writ Appeals. The petitioner in each of the Writ Petitions is the first-respondent in the respective Writ Appeals. The second-respondent in the Writ Petitions is the second-respondent in the Writ Appeals. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the Writ Petitions. 2. An industrial dispute between the T.U.C.S. Employees' Union and the first-respondent relating to wage increase, wastage, driage and spillage allowance and non-employment of certain workmen was conciliated before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Madras. It is to be noted that the two petitioners were amongst the workmen non- employed by the first respondent. There was a settlement on 2nd July, 1977 under S. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. While the ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S.S.M. Ahmed Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)54CTR(Mad)327; [1987]164ITR525(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The two questions which have been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to carry forward and set off the loss of Rs. 2,32,485 under section 72(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's finding that there was unity of control and management of the two businesses carried on by the assessee was relevant for the purpose of deciding the question whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward the loss under section 72(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or not and whether that finding is supported by materials on record ?' 2. The assessment year in question is 1968-69. During the prior assessment year, the assessee, who is not represented before us, was c...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ramanathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC317
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus to produce and set at liberty, one Raman detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by an order dated 18-7-1985. The petitioner is the father of the said detenu.2. The detenu is a foreign national, a citizen of Singapore and is a Barrister practising at Singapore. His father, the petitioner, is stated to be a retired Income-tax Officer. On the 25th day of May, 1985 the detenu who is a holder of Singapore passport arrived as a passenger from Singapore by Air India flight at 10 P.M. at the Madras Airport. He arrived with one VIP green-colour suit case, another black colour Echolac suit case and one brown carton with the description Akai-VS-3AV-VCR. When the Customs Officers took up the above packages for examination, the detenu declared that those packages were his own and that he had one cassette r...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nguyon Ngoc Em Alias Mariam Beev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ253
V. Ratnam, J.1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is the appellant in these appeals. Second Appeal No. 13 of 1980 has been preferred by it against the decree for ejectment passed against the Corporation in O.S.No25 of 1978, District Munsif's Court, Karaikal, instituted by the respondent therein and affirmed in A.S. No. 46 of 1978, Subordinate Judge's Court, Karaikal. Second Appeal No. 1591 of 1983 is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karaikal, in A.S. No. 15 of 1980 reversing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 96 of 1979, Additional District Munsif's Court, Karaikal, instituted by the Corporation for specific performance of an agreement to renew the term of the lease in its favour for a further period of 20 years from 1.2.1978. It may be mentioned that the decree in ejectment had been passed against the Corporation on the only ground in favour of the Corporation had expired and no suit for specifi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.R. Selvamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad171
ORDER1. The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff is the respondent. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of amounts deposited by him with the defendant under an agreement. That agreement was broken, and the defaulter was found to be the plaintiff. There was an earlier suit to maintain the agreement and that was dismissed; and one of the grounds of dismissal was lack of notice under S. 80, CPC. The plaintiff relied on S. 14 of the Limitation Act, stating that the earlier suit was prosecuted in good faith and the court, apart from other grounds, could not entertain it for want of notice under S. 80, C.P.C. The case of the plaintiff has been countenanced by the two courts below. In this second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, the two substantial questions of law formulated by this court at the time of the admission of this second appeal run as follows -1. Whether in the light of the conditions in the tender form as accepted...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeevalochanchar, Sriperumbudur and anr. Vs. D. Ramachar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad227; (1987)IIMLJ190
ORDER1. The suit was filed under Sec. 92 C.P.C. for framing. a scheme for the trust known as Deep Narayandas Trust. The deed of Trust dated 11-1-1910 provides that the income from the property should be spent for lighting in Sri Adhikesavaperumal, Sri Rhashyakar temple and Manavala Mamuni Sannidhi and for feeding the uttaradhis (persons from North India) during Brahmotsavam and other periods in the year. When the suit was taken up for trial, at the instance of the defendants, issues I and 2 relating to the maintainability of the suit were taken up for consideration as preliminary issues. The contention of the defendants was that by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowments Act 1959(Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959), the suit is barred and that if at all the application will have to be made to the Deputy Commissioner for framing the scheme under S. 63 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this contention on the ground that the ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »