Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ494
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. These two revisions arise out of an application for fixation of fair rent filed by the respondent herein. The agreed rent was Rs. 355 fixed under a registered lease deed dated 4.2.1964, a registration copy of which has been marked as Ex.R.2. The lease is for a period of 25 yea Rs. The application for fair rent has been filed in June, 1983. The respondent claimed that a sum of Rs. 5,900 per mensem shall be the fair rent for the building. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2,725 per mensem. There were appeals by both the petitioner and the respondent before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and fixed the fair rent at Rs. 3,973 per mensem. The aggrieved tenant has preferred these revision petitions.2. Two contentions are urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first contention is that the petitioner for fixation of fair rent is not ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1989]176ITR393(Mad)
S. Ratnavel Pandian, Offg. C.J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law has been referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the transaction of the assessee of purchasing the property in question under the sale deed dated April 20, 1963, and selling the same after converting it into small housing plots did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade and the surplus arising from the sale of plots could be brought to tax only as capital gains ?' 2. The brief facts of the case are as under : The assessee, during the relevant period, was a resident of Saigon and assessed in India in the status of a non-resident. During the year 1963, the assessee purchased a property at Madras which consisted of 22 grounds and 222 sq. ft. with a dilapidated building. In the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1970-71, the question arose whether t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)1MLJ198
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 80 of 1987, District Munsif's Court, Sathiamangalam (O.S. No. 552 of 1980 (District Munsif court, Gobichettipalayam) is the petitioner in this Civil Revision petition directed against the orders of the Courts below holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the petitioner.2. In the course of the plaint in O.S. No. 80 of 1987, the petitioner obtained that the respondent herein is a tenant of his with reference to a field called Palayakalaianoor Boothi Thottam and that he is not a tenant of the filed in R.S.F.219/2. With reference to the two sheds bearing door Nos. 28 and 29, situated in R.S.F.219/2, the petitioner came forward with the case that the respondent requested the petitioner to permit him to occupy the sheds and that was accepted to and the occupation of the sheds by the respondent was permissive. The further case of the petitioner was that the sheds had become dilapidated and required rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ105
Bellie, J.1. The plaintiffs were the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. Sri Kothandaramaswami temple is founded by one P.Venkata Varada Doss in or about 1891 out of his own funds. He, under, a registered Will Ex.Bl, dated 9.7.1915, nominated his brother-in-law D.Venkatarangayya to administer the affairs of the temple and accordingly the said Venkatarangayya was in management of the temple till his death on 19.9.1943. The Hindu Religious Endow ments Board with whom administration of Hindu temples were vested at that time, in OA. No. 165 of 1935 passed orders Ex.B2, dated 4.10.1935 declaring the temple as an excepted temple under the provisions of Act 2 of 1927on the ground that succession to the trusteeship had been provided by the founder as contemplated in Section 9(5) of the Act 2 of 1927. The said Venkatarangayya executed a Will Ex.B3, dated 9.8.1941 in respect of administration of the temple including its properties. He vested the administration in a committee of five trus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1989(20)ECC147
S. Ratnavel Pandian, Offg. C.J.1. The above three writ appeals are directed against the common order dated 10-2-1988 made by Venkataswami J. in W.P. Nos. 5794 to 5796 of 1987 respectively. The prayer in all these writ petitions is common, in that the writ petitioners (respondents herein) have sought the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent in the writ petition (appellant herein), viz., the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, or any other officers acting under or on behalf of him to forbear from taking any further proceedings against the writ petitioners under Sections 35 and 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as FERA) or any other Act on the basis of the statements of the writ petitioners obtained by the appellant's officials under S. 40 of the FERA. 2. It is seen from the records that from the writ petitioner Mansoor Mohammed Ali Jinnah, statements were recorded on 12-5-1987 and 4-6-1987, whereas from the other two writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1992(61)ELT595(Mad)
ORDERK.M. Natarajan, J. 1. Since common questions were raised in all these matters, they were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these matters can be briefly stated as follows :- The Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports instituted private complaints under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against these petitioners, for offence committed under Section 5 of the Act, read with various sections under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners filed objections stating that they being private complaints instituted by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and the Collector of Customs as the case may be, the prosecution should not be conducted by the Senior Public Prosecutors and the Special Public Prosecutors of the C.B.I. police, and that the authorisation by the said complainant to the Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution is invalid as he is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad246
ORDERS.T. Ramalingam, J. 1. The 1st and 2nd petitioning Creditors are husband and wife respectively. They filed this petition under Sections 9(g), 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act against the eight respondents for adjudging them as insolvents and for directing their properties to vest with the Official assignee, Madras, under the - following circumstances.2. The 1st respondent is a firm of partnership, of which respondents 2 to 8 are partners. The 1st respondent is a Financing Firm and it used to receive deposits from the public. In the usual course of its business, the petitioning creditors deposited Rs. 50,000/-as Term Deposit on 15-11-1983. The maturity date for the deposit was 18-11-1986. The deposit carried interest at 13 per cent per annum. Interest was payable every month.The respondents paid interest up to 31-8-1985 and failed to pay interest thereafter. Hence a letter was written by the petitioning creditors stating that there is a breach of contract In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ251
ORDERRatnam, J.1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 151 of 1982, District Munsifs Court, Pudukottai, is the petitioner in this civil Revision Petition. On 23-12-1971, the petitioner obtained a preliminary decree on a mortgage against the respondent herein and others. Since no amounts were paid to the petitioner as directed in the preliminary decree, he filed I.A. No. 332 of 1982 in O.S. No. 151 of 1982 under Order 34, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the passing of a final decree. That application was resisted by the respondent herein, who was the 4th defendant in the suit, on the ground that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, Act 13 of 1980, and therefore, the preliminary decree should be declared to have been discharged.2. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the petitioner, Ex. A. l was filed and the petitioner was examined as P.W.1, while, on behalf of the respondent, Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked and the respondent and another gave evidence as R.Ws. 1 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)1MLJ156
ORDERK. M. Natarajan, J.1. This revision is directed by the petitioner/second defendant in I.A.No. 959 of 1981 in O.S.No. 241 of 1981 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge, Chingelput, dismissing the said petition.2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows:- The first respondent, namely, the Chingleput Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Chingleput represented byits secretary, filed the suit O.S.No .241 of 1981 against the petitioner herein and the first defendant C.K. Selvarangammal for a declaration of title of the plaintiff to the suit property and for directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession after demolishing the unauthorised construction put up by them. The case of the first respondent (plaintiff) is that the plaintiff-society has been formed for the benefit of the members in the trade of building, buying, selling, hiring, letting and developing lands in accordance, with the cooperative principles, to give l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1989(42)ELT218(Mad)
David Annoussamy, J.1. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing these petitions, and the Affidavit filed with Crl. M.P. No. 2365 of 1988 on the file of the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Advocate for the petitioners in each of the petitions, and of Mr. T. Munirathina Naidu for Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent in both the petitions, the Court made the following order :-These are two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2365 of 1988 is by accused 1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 11. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2851 of 1988 is by accused 4 and 10. The 12th accused has not filed any petition. The substance of the complaint was that there was a violation by accused 1, the company, and by the other accused, who belong to the company in their various capacities, of Clause 13(1) of the Fertilizer Control Act, 1957 and that thereby they become punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) o...
Tag this Judgment!