Chennai Court February 1986 Judgments
T. Panneerselvan Vs. A. Baylis
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ300
ORDERK. Shanmukham, J.1. The defendant in O.S.No. 158 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is aggrieved against the order made in I.A.No. 667 of 1985 in which the learned Subordinate Judge granted interim injunction restraining the present appellant from alienating the suit property pending disposal of the respondent's application under Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code.2. At the outset, as pointed out already, this is a mere interim order passed in the presence of both the parties. This will show that no final order has been passed in the application. None the less, Mr. Govindarajan learned Counsel for the appellant very seriously argues that the Court below cannot pass an order of injunction pending an application under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. because the suit itself is no more on the file of the Court. In this context, the learned Counsel for the appellant would rely upon Raw Sarup v. King Emperor A.I.R.1925 Oudh 345. The learned Judicial Commissioner ...
Tag this Judgment!S.J. Raman Photo Studio, Reptd. by Prop., Mr. S. Janakiraman and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ473
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. Some interesting questions under the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', arise in these revisions. The petitioner in each of the revision petitions is the tenant. The landlords-respondents, in R.C.O.P. No. 7 and 8 of 1983 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act sought the eviction of their two tenants, petitioners in these revisions. The Rent Controller' dismissed the applications. Hence the respondents preferred M.A. No. 62 and 80 of 1983 respectively before the Appellate Authority (II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry). Pending the appeals, the respondents filed I.A. Nos. 278 and 276 of 1984 respectively purporting to be under Rule 26 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', praying,. Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to inspect the petition properties more particularly described in Schedule A to the main petition for purposes of assessing the age of ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Srinivasan Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC257; 1987(27)ELT656(Mad)
1. In both these writ petitions, the petitioner is one and the same. However, the facts slightly differ. Therefore, I will first deal with W.P. No. 11392 of 1985. 2. On an information received on 11th May, 1983 by the Special Investigation Department of the Customs Department that M/s. T.G. Elumalai & Co., the Customs House Agents were carting into harbour 79 packages for shipping and these packages contained snake skins. The same were packed and loaded in lorries in Triplicane and were moved to harbour at W.Q. III. On this information, a careful watch was arranged at the place of harbour for the arrival of the goods. In the meanwhile, the Customs House Agents filed Shipping bills Nos. 9346 and 0343 both dated 9th May, 1983 in the case of the petitioner's firm Jaival Tex. It was declared in the same bills that the goods were handloom cotton coloured towels. Both the Exporters and the Customs House Agents have signed the declarations under Section 59(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The shi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. B.C. Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1986
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Mad)176; [1986]160ITR27(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The assessee in this reference has admittedly received a sum of Rs. 38,079 when he won the jackpot at the horse race on February 27, 1972. The amount was received by cheque and he made an try in his account books to the effect that a cheque for Rs. 38,079 was received from the Madras Race Club as 'prize on hitting jackpot, vide ticket J. No. 26541 and Certificate No. 798 dated March 16, 1972'. For the assessment year 1973-74 for which the previous year of the assessee ended on November 5, 1972, because the assessee had Deepavali account year, the Income-tax Officer included a sum of Rs. 37,079, though the assessee claimed that this amount was exempt as the receipt fell within the financial year 1971-72. The figure Rs. 37,079 was arrived at after allowing exemption for a sum of Rs. 1,000 out of Rs. 38,079. 2. The assessee went in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who deleted the addition and accepted the case of the assessee that the winnings from th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pre-stressed Concrete Co. (S.i.) P. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)380; [1986]162ITR314(Mad)
1. The assessee-company carried on the business of consulting engineers.jIn the assessment for the year 1970-71, corresponding to the previous year ending with March 31, 1970, the assessee returned a loss of Rs. 2,25,815. This sum included a sum of Rs. 2,09,993 which was shown as royalty outstanding and payable to a foreign company. The total amount of royalty which was payable at the end of the accounting year 1963-64 was Rs. 4,74,918 out of which a sum of Rs. 2,64,926 had been paid. The last payment was made on April 24, 1964, in the sum of Rs. 30,000. Subsequent to the accounting year 1963-64 no royalty was payable by the assessee, as there was no manufacture of cones which was the product for which the royalty was to be paid. The foreign company had also neither asked nor taken any steps to recover the balance of royalty which was shown as due to the foreign company. The Income-tax Officer taking the view that the outstanding liability had, for all intents and purposes, ceased, add...
Tag this Judgment!Dugar Investments Limited and anr. Vs. Additional Collector of Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC265; 1987(27)ELT604(Mad)
1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of declaration, declaring Section 115(2) of the Customs Act read with the proviso thereto, in so far as it relates to the adjudication order passed by the first respondent herein in his No. C. No. VIII/10/1/85 - O.R. No. 55/84-85 cus. Adj. dated 3-9-1985 in respect of the Ambassador car No. TMG 7137, owned by the first petitioner as ultra vires and as offending Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India. 2. This Writ Petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the argument of Mr. A. Devanathan, Advocate for the petitioner, the Court made the following order :- On 13/14-10-1984 the police officers of Thiruvanmiyur and party proceeded to Injambakkam Kuppam at about 2.15 A.M. The po...
Tag this Judgment!Balaraman Vs. Varadammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad94
ORDER1. The petitioner is one of the sons of the judgment-debtor (1st respondent in E. P. 643 of 1984, X Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras) and 3rd respondent in that execution. The respondent-decree-holder obtained a decree for maintenance in O. S. 7927 of 1976 against her husband, Narayanan. The decree also provided a charge over the property No. 91 Venkatarangam Pillai St. Triplicane, Madras. The said execution was laid against the legal representatives of her husband viz, his three sons and a daughter, as the judgment-debtor passed away in the meanwhile. The amount claimed is Rs. 18,384-10 after giving credit to the payment of Rs. 20,300. In the execution a sum of Rs. 36,000 standing to the credit of the judgment-debtor and his son, the petitioner in Punjab National Bank, Triplicane, Madras was sought to be attached by issue of a prohibitory order to the bank. All the petitioner's objections were rejected by the Court below and execution was ordered. Hence, this revision.2. The...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramaswamy Gounder Vs. Ambujam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ113
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. The revision arises under the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (Act 14 of 1955).2. At the outset, I wish to point out that I heard the arguments on behalf of respondents 17 and 24 not in recognition of their rights to support the petitioner, but not to deny me the able assistance from the learned Advocate General.3. The petitioner is the 11th defendant in the suit. His contentions are three-fold, viz., that the relief as regards the partnership business is governed by Section 36, but not by Section 37(1) of the Act; that the relief regarding the other assets should have been valued under Section 37(1) but not under Section 37(2) and that when certain sums are estimated to be due in respect of accounting the court-fee ought to have been paid on such an estimated sum, but not on the notional figure of Rs. 5,000. All these contentions did not find favour with the court below. Hence this revision.4. The three cardinal principles that should be borne...
Tag this Judgment!Muthiah Alias Gandhi and ors. Vs. Subbiah Chettiar by Power Agent Sevu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ83
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. The petitioners are some of legal representatives of the judgment-debtor (first defendant in the suit). They were unsuccessful in their plea that the decree was barred by time. Hence, this revision.2. The facts to be noticed are as follows : The suit, O.S. 14 of 1967 was decreed on 16th September, 1967. It is a money decree. The first respondent-assignee decree-holder filed E.P. 37 of 1972 for sale of the first defendant's immovable property. The execution petition was stayed pending the appeal, A.S. 769 of 1974, on the file of this Court. The appeal was disposed of on 2nd March, 1981. On 8th February, 1982, the Court below issued notice to both the parties for the hearing on 30th January, 1982. On 30th January, 1982, the sole respondent (first defendant) was reported dead, it was adjourned to 10th February, 1982. After some adjournments for the respondents to take steps, the execution petition was dismissed on 30th March, 1982, and attachment was also raised, as ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Nagarathnam Vs. District Library Officer, Local Library Authority
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ327
ORDERG. Maheswaran, J.1. The revision petitioner-landlord has filed this revision against the order of the Appellate Authority (Rent Control) in R.C.A. No. 1093 of 1982 confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Madras, in H.R.C. No. 4461 of 1981 dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 19(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The petition schedule property is occupied by the respondent, District Library Officer, Local Library Authority, Madras, on a monthly rental of Rs. 100. The revision petitioner, a graduate and owner of the petition schedule property, requires the same for running a nursery school and creche for children of employed women. She filed the petition referred to. But the Rent Controller found that the requirement is not bona fide and dismissed the petition. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the petition. This revision challenges the order of the Tribunals be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »