Chennai Court January 1987 Judgments
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowment, S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Mad187; (1988)IMLJ3
1. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 in O. S. No. 19 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Salem have preferred Second Appeal No. 42 of 1980 while the fifth defendant in the same suit has preferred the other Second Appeal No. 43 of 1986.2. The suit was filed originally by two persons for a declaration that Arulmighu Kannatfur Mariarnman temple situated in Tharamangalarn village is a denominational temple entitled to the protection conferred by Art. 26 of the Constitution and that the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 could be applied only subject to the constitutional rights recognised by S. 107 of the said Act, for a direction to the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem-7 to remove the hundial installed by him illegally on 7-7-1982 by means of a mandatory injunction and to restrain the defendants and their men from installing a hundial or directing the plaintiffs to instal a hundial or by appointing trustees or in any other mann...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasalu and anr. Vs. Krishnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ33
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. These two revision petitions are illustrations as to how far parties can go in making false affidavits for the purpose of having an ex parte decree, set aside. In a suit for money filed by the plaintiff, who is the respondent In C.R.P. No. 1099 of 1982, and is the respondent in C.R.P. No. 1484 of 1986, an ex parte decree was passed, on 12th July, 1978. The defendants in the suit were a partnership firm consisting of defendants 2 and 3, defendant No. 1 being the partnership firm.2. On 25th April, 1961, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made accompanied by another application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The bald averments made in the application for condonation of delay with which alone we are concerned, were that the suit was transferred from the file of the Second Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, to file of the Sixth City Civil Judge, Madras, and that this fact was completely overlooked by the th...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ8
Srinivasan, J.1. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 in O.S. No. 19 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif, Salem have preferred Second Appeal No. 42 of 1986 while the fifth defendant in the same suit has preferred the other Second Appeal No. 43 of 1986.2. The suit was filed originally by two persons for a declaration that Arulmigu Kannanur Mariamman temple situated in Tharamangalam Village is a denominational temple entitled to the protection conferred by Article 26 of the Constitution of India and that the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 could be applied only subject to the constitutional rights recognised by Section 107 of the said Act, for a direction to the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem-7 to remove the hundial installed by him only on 7-7-1982 by means of a mandatory injunction and to restrain the defendants and their men from installing a hundial or directing the plaintiffs to install a hundial or by appointing trustee...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: [1990]182ITR460(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following three questions have been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Rs. 38,008, being 50% of the expenditure incurred by the assessee for providing carpets and screens in the two cinema theatres is to be allowed as revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1972-73 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 15% of Rs. 4,27,967, being the cost of the partition works and false ceilings for the assessment year 1972-73 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs. 9,680, being provision made for gratuity payable to its employees ' 2. Counsel for the Revenue fairly concedes that, in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation : [1983]141ITR40(Mad) for the earlier...
Tag this Judgment!Sakthi Charities Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1987
Reported in: [1990]182ITR483(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The assessee filed a petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for directing the Tribunal to refer the following questions of law : ' (i) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee-trust as originally constituted could not be regarded as a charitable trust entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, in the absence of any power of revocation or modification except to the limit provided in clause (xxx) of the concerned trust deed in this case, the trustees have no power to revoke or modify any of the objects of the trust as originally constituted and, therefore, the deed of rectification is not valid or effective ' 2. All these tax case petitions have to be rejected in view of the decision of this court i n a reference case arising out of the assessment proceedings in respect of the same assessee for the assess...
Tag this Judgment!Kumudini Subhan and anr. Vs. Chief Commissioner (Admn.), Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1987
Reported in: [1992]198ITR390(Mad)
Ramalingam, J. 1. These petitions have been filed by various persons who are accused in C. C. No. 179 of 1985, on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences Wing-I), Egmore, Madras, to call for the records and quash the said proceedings in the following circumstances. 2. Accused Nos. 9 and 13 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3409 of 1985, accused Nos. 11 and 12 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3412 of 1985, accused Nos. 18 and 20 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3679 of 1985, accused Nos. 6, 7 and 10 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3695 of 1985, accused Nos. 1 to 5 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3711 of 1985 and accused Nos. 8 and 19 have filed Crl. M.P. 3879 of 1985. 3. The complainant is the Chief Commissioner (Admn.), Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu I, Madras-34. A-1, N. K. Mohnot is an income-tax practitioner and is the son of A-3, Panchandas Mohnot. A-2 is a Hindu undivided family consisting of accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, A-5 and A-11. A-4 Sanjay Prakash Mohnot and A-5, Anjay Prakash Moh...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Girdhardas (Died) and ors. Vs. V. Sivarama Subramanian and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1987
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ313
V. Ramaswamy, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgement and decree in C.S. No. 28 of 1964 on the file of this Court determining the mesne profits in relation to the suit property at Rs. 6,250 per month. The claim of the plaintiffs was at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per month.2. The litigation had a chequered career. But suffice it to note a few of the facts which are necessary for the necessary for the disposal of this appeal. The plaintiffs originally filed this suit praying for a declaration that they have become the owners of the building and the superstructure constructed by the defendants on the lands leased by them to the defendants in terms of the lease deed dated 17th November, 1938. Ultimately, the prayer in the suit was amended as one for specific performance and for a direction to the defendants to execute and register a deed vesting the building and the superstructures on the site let out by them, and for a direction to deliver to the plaintiffs the site alo...
Tag this Judgment!N.A. Suyambulingam Vs. V.K. Swaminathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1987
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ132
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge allowing A.A.O. No. 783 of 1986 and setting aside an Ex Parte judgment in O.S. No. 180 of 1983, on the file of the first Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. The suit was taken up for trial on 22.10.1984, and on that date P.W. 1 was examined and Exs. A1 to A9 were marked. On that day, counsel for the first defendant was also present. The case was adjourned for further trial on 24.10.1984. On that day, counsel for the first defendant withdrew his appearance and the first defendant was set Ex Parte. P.W. 1 was further examined and the case was posted to 25.10.1984. It appears that on that day the second defendant was examined and Ex. B1 also was marked. The arguments of the plaintiff were heard and the judgment was delivered on 31.10.1984. On 22.11.1984 the first defendant filed an application to set aside the Ex Parte decree. That petition was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. However, on a...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Vs. Muthukrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ159
ORDERM.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is a good illustration of how a simple claim for a money decree on the basis of a promissory note can be kept pending for more than 12 years at one stage or another by taking recourse to what now appears to be a normal technique of allowing ex parte orders to be passed and then moving the court for setting aside all ex parte decrees or orders.2. The suit in the instant case which is based on a promissory note was filed as> far back as in 1974 being O.S. No. 618 of 1974. The record of C.R.P 3340 of 1983, which was filed by one of the judgment-debtors shows that in the suit an ex parte decree was passed and on a petition filed by the judgment-debtors, the ex parte decree was set aside.3. The decree which is sought to be executed was passed on 8.11.1978, i.e., 7 years earlier and yet the decree-holder has not been able to get the fruits of the decree. When the execution petition was filed and it was taken up after notice to the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Tyres International Ltd. Vs. Express Newspapers Private Ltd. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ191
ORDERM.N. Chandrukar, C.J.1. All these three revision petitions two of which are by the tenant and one by the landlord, raise a question with regard to the correctness of the fair rent fixed in respect of premises which are situated on the Mount Road, Madras, with a built up area of 18,047 sq. ft., 13,967 sq. ft., are covered by Go-down and 4,080 sq.ft. are covered by office premises.2. The original agreed rent was Rs. 3,000 per month. The landlord filed an application for fixation of fair rent claiming Rs. 18,000 per month. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 6,801 per month. Against this order both the landlord and the tenant went in appeal. The tenant's appeal came to be dismissed. The landlord appeal came to be allowed partly and the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 9,825 per month. Since the appellate order was passed in two appeals, one by the tenant and the other by the landlord, two revision petitions came to be filed by the tenant being C.R.P. Nos. 2491 and 2492 of 1983. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »