Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1989(58)FLR924]; (1989)IILLJ453Mad
1. Though the actual dispute that arises for consideration in this writ petition lies in a very narrow compass, learned counsel for both sides advanced elaborate arguments. 2. The issue that arises for decision is, whether the petitioner-bank is to be treated as a 'banking company' and/or as a 'co-operative society,' for the purposes of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Bonus Act). To put it in a nutshell, the argument of Sri M. R. Narayanaswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner-bank has to be treated both as a 'banking company' and as a 'co-operative society' for the purposes of Section 6(d) read with Third Schedule of the Bonus Act. Alternatively, it is his contention that it should be treated as a co-operative society falling under Item (4) of the Third Schedule to the Bonus Act. 3. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent-union, Sri Somayaji, is that the petitioner-bank has to be treate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ423
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed by the second defendant against the exparte order of ad-interim injunction passed by the IV Assistant City Civil Judge, Mad. in I.A.No. 17289 of 1988. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No. 9891 of 1988 against the revision-petitioner and the Corporation of Madras, for a declaration that the construction already put up by the revision-petitioner herein is illegal and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision-petitioner from doing further construction and also for a mandatory injunction directing him to demolish the construction already put up and also to direct the Corporation of Madras to take action against the revision-petitioner. The plaintiffs prayed for ad-interim injunction in I.A.No. 17289 of 1988 restraining the revision-petitioner, who is the second defendant and his men from putting up any construction over and above the existing construction over the schedule mentioned property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ379
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. This civil revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questions the correctness of the order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Thiruthuraipoondi dismissing an application filed by the petitioner herein in E A. No. 123 of 1985 in E.P. No. 46 of 1985 in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1984, under Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Act.2. According to the case of the petitioner, an ex parte order of eviction had been passed against him on 1.2.1985 and an application to set aside that order had been filed on 4.2.1985 under Rule 12(3) of the Rules in I A. No. 4 of 1985. Notice of that application was taken by the respondent herein and time for filing a counter was requested on 12.2.1985 and subsequently, time was extended for filing counter till 14.6.1985. Meanwhile, on 24.4.1985, the respondent is stated to have filed E.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ356
ORDERS.T. Ramalingam, J.1. The petitioner is an establishment engaged in the conduct of chits or kuris and it carries on all operations connected with the said business. For over two decades, the petitioner was carrying on conventional chits. The nature of the business being carried on by the petitioner is set out in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. It statesA Chit is usually started by an individual known as the Foreman, who invites members of the public to subscribe to the chit, agreeing to pay his own subscriptions periodically from the subscribers and pays the collections to such of those subscribers as may be determined by lot to be publicly drawn. The advantage of being a Foreman is that the Foreman is entitled to receive the first instalment of the collections. An ordinary chit is essentially a transaction by which such subscriber gets a loan from the common fund. The subscribers to a chit fund scheme usually join the scheme in order to avail themselves of the facility of bidding t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)75CTR(Mad)1; [1989]177ITR307(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. All these matters raise one and the same question of law. Therefore, we propose to deal with them under a common judgment. 2. The facts leading to the writ appeals are as follows: The appellant is a trust know as Thanthi Trust. This was created under an instrument of declaration of trust dated March 1, 1954. The purpose of the trust was to found Daily Thanthi Newspaper as an organ of educated public opinion for the Tamil reading public to disseminate news and ventilate opinions on all matters of public interest through the said newspaper. The appellant trust is an assessee on the file of the respondent. Its permanent account number is P.A. No. 47,005-AZ-5117. The trust had been claiming exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, from the assessment year 1955-56 onwards in respect of its income. Though there were several proceedings in relation to the claim for exemption, ultimately, the Income-tax Officer upheld the appellant's claim for exemption f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ211
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. These two Revisions arise out of proceedings for fixation of fair rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The landlord in the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2081 of 1984 and the tenant is the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3423 of 1983. The Premises demised is situate at new door No. 250, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras. The agreed rent was Rs. 8,000/-per month. The landlord claimed for fixation of fair rent at Rs. 3,760 per month. The tenant would not adhere to the agreed rent and would say that the fair rent only comes to Rs. 1,350. The Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,337/- per month. Both the landlord and tenant appealed and the Appellate Authority found no warrant to differ from the decision of the Controller and dismissed both the Appeals. Thus, the landlord and the tenant are obliged to prefer these Revisions.2. The first aspect canvassed both by the learned Advocate General appearing for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ108
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The first respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No. 209 of 1976 and obtained an order of eviction. In the execution proceeding, the petitioner herein was shown as the second respondent. The petitioner objected to the sustainability of the execution proceeding on the ground that he was not a party to the eviction proceeding, The Rent Controller overruled that objection and directed delivery of the property by 20.9.88. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the appellate authority under Section 23 of the Act. The appellate authority held that Section 18(2) of the Act prevented any appeal being filed against the order of the Rent Controller passed under Section 18(1) of the Act.2. It is vehemently contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Rent Controller in this case cannot be said to be one under Section 18(1) of the Act. Learned Counsel contends that Section 8(1) refers to orders under Sections 10,14,15,16 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ129
Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 1623 of 1978, District Munsif s Court, Coimbatore; is the appellant in the second appeal and the petitioner in the civil revision petition. Briefly stated, the circumstances giving rise to these proceedings are as follows:According to the case of the plaintiff, the Devasthanam is the owner of the suit property, which was under the occupation of deceased Narayanan (1st defendant in the suit) as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 40 payable on the first of every English calendar month upto 30.4.1977. Though with reference to other buildings in the locality, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. Department, enhanced the rent, in respect of the building in the occupation of deceased Narayanan, the rent was not enhanced, but deceased Narayanan was a chronic defaulter and was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,186, which had not been paid despite repeated demands and requests. Thereupon, a notice was issued by the plaintiff to deceased Narayanan on 3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ489
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The tenant, who has suffered an order of eviction before the authorities below has filed this revision petition. The respondent sought eviction on two grounds, viz., wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for additional accommodation for purposes of his business. The Rent Controller granted eviction on both the grounds while the appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of wilful default, but confirmed the finding on the ground of additional accommodation2. In the petition for eviction, it is stated in paragraph 12 that the landlord requires the petition building for purposes of manufacturing and repairing shoes as an adjunct of the show mart which he is running in the extreme west of the same building. It is further stated that the portion in which the shoe mart is being run is about 13 feet x 12 feet, and it is barely sufficient to use show room and for keeping the goods. It is also averred that there is no space ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ461
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This is an appeal against the final decree in a suit for partition O.S. No. 37 of 1963, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu. The estate in respect of which the suit for partition was laid, belonged to one late Ismail Khan. The estate comprised of immovable properties set out in schedule 'A', as well as outstanding and a share in a partnership business, set out in Schedule 'B'. The appellants are defendants 2 and 6, The respondents are the plaintiffs and the other defendants. The preliminary decree in the suit Was passed on 31.8.1965. It was subsequently modified by this Court on 82.1973 in Appeal No. 560 of 1966. By the preliminary decree, the shares of the parties got determined as follows:Plaintiffs 62/104;Second Defendant 7/104;Defendants 1 and 3 to 5 35/104.The third-defendant died pending the suit and her legal representatives are defendants 7 to 11. On 8.4.1976 there was an order in IA. No. 404 of 1974, the application for passing the final ...
Tag this Judgment!