Chennai Court March 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ramanathapuram District Consumers' Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ274
Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents for a declaration that the orders of suspension passed by the appellant against them on 7.1.1984 were without jurisdiction, null and void and for an injunction restraining the appellant from enforcing the said order or prevent the respondents from performing their duties as Junior Assistants of the Stores belonging to the appellant.2. The plaintiffs were Junior Assistants working in the stores belonging to the appellant. On 29.11,1982 they found the locks of the stores broken, doors opened and goods worth about Rs. 1,43,464/- stolen. They made a report to the Superintendent who in turn made a complaint to the police regarding the alleged theft. The police made a report that the complaint was false and in the report, they seem to have referred to certain materials against the respondents. The report as such is not exhibited in these proceedings. Based on the report of the police, the Registrar of Co-operative Soc...
S.T. Daniel Vs. Y. Davidson
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad357
1. The question of law that arises for decision in the second appeal is whether G.O. Ms. No. 2000, Home, dated 168-1976, by which the State of Tamil Nadu had exempted the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from the operation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, is applicable to a case where the tenant of a property of a religious institution had filed a suit against his sub-tenant for delivery of possession. In the present case, the respondent who was a tenant in respect of the suit premises belonging to the Home Church, Nagarcod, filed the suit, O.S. 527 of 1984 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Padmanabhapuram for recovery of possession and arrears of rent. In the plaint it is alleged that since the suit property is the property of the Church, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act do not applying the appellant here in, ...
V.M. Rao Vs. Parameswari Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad230
ORDER1. The plaintiff is the sole executor of one A. V. M. Caesar as per the will dated 14-12-1977. A mortgage deed was executed in favour of Caesar by late Balasubramaniam and his wife, first defendant herein, the latter acting on her behalf and also on behalf of the then minor children, defendants 2 to 4, and present minor, 5th defendant. The amount borrowed was Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. The properties which had been mortgaged consist of four items. Item I belongs to the defendants, the first defendant having ,, life estate and the remaining entitled to a bare ownership. Items 2, 3 and 4 are properties claimed by Balasubramaniam as his own. In respect of item 1, since minor's interest was involved, an application was filed before the principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras by Balasubramaniam and his wife on their behalf and on behalf of their minor children on 7-71967 for mortgaging the property. Permission was granted on 19-7-1967. The Mortgage was executed on...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Subramanian and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1987
Reported in: [1989]180ITR149(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J. 1. In view of the confusion which appears in the order of the Tribunal which has obviously led the Revenue to file this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it becomes necessary to pass a slightly detailed order. 2. The main question before the Tribunal was the meaning of the word 'forward' in section 144B of the Act, which requires the Income-tax Officer in certain circumstances to 'forward a draft of the proposed order of assessment... to the assessee'. The Department's case was that the draft order was forwarded on March 30, 1982. Admittedly, the order was received on April 5, 1982, by the assessee. When the matter reached the stage of the Tribunal, the Tribunal referred to the contention of the assessee that the expression 'forward' includes the fact of service also. This contention, the Tribunal positively negatived, by observing as follows : '... While we do not find any substance in the assessee's contention that the expression 'for...
K. Muthusamy Pillai Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1987
Reported in: (1988)68CTR(Mad)76; [1988]174ITR636(Mad); [1988]37TAXMAN196(Mad)
MOHAN J. - These two writ petitions can be dealt with under a common order. I will now refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 5156 of 1987. The petitioner is an assessee under the First Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin. In a partition which took place in the petitioners family in the year 1953, he was allotted four acres of land at Palayamkottai Road, Tuticorin. He sold the same for a sum of Rs. 2,70,000 by a registered document dated March 24, 1980. Action was taken under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The assessment was reopened after obtaining the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. On this transaction, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 11,000 as capital gains tax. On revision, the Income-tax Officer estimated the market value of the land at Rs. 8,000 per acre as on January 1, 1964. The petitioner went on appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and in the appeal, the market value was increased from Rs. 8...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›