Chennai Court May 1988 Judgments
Mrs. Kalavathy Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-31-1988
Reported in: [1989]30ITD79(Mad)
ORDER UNDER S. 269F--Joint transfer by five transferors by a common instrumentRatio :Separate orders qua each transfer was required to be passed where each transferor was having independent title.Held :Each of the five transferors had got specified property which was the subject of transfer by common instrument of transfer. It is, therefore, clear that each transferor transferred only the item of property of which he was the owner. There was no transfer by an association of persons because nobody can transfer a better title than what he has. Each transferor could only transfer the title to the property which he owns. Merely because a single document was executed no transferor could, or did, transfer property which belonged to any of the other transferors. Therefore, there should have been separate orders, of acquisition passed qua each of the transferors 1 to 5. A single order passed would not be void, but a single order is severable.Income Tax Act 1961 s.269C ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mathialagan Vs. Mala Devi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1988
Reported in: I(1990)DMC448; I(1991)DMC111
Srinivasan, J.1. Though the appearance of Senior counsel for the appellant resulted in illuminating arguments on an interesting question of law, after going through the records, I found that the question of law did not arise in this case. I will refer to it in detail after setting out the facts which brought the appeal to this court.2. The respondent herein filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. No doubt, the prayer goes a little further and seeks a direction to the appellant herein to go and live with her. It is rather curious to pray for a direction to the husband to go and live with the wife as in this State, normally, the wife goes and lives with the husband wherever he is and not the other way about. Any way, the frame of the prayer does not affect the merits of the case.3. The averments found in the petition were that the respondent married the appellant according to the Hindu Sastric rites and customs ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Muthukrishna Reddiar Vs. the Authorised Officer, (Land Reforms) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ154
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. Exemption is prayed for by the writ petitioner on the ground of the Institution being one which is a of religious character and also of a public nature. Since naivedyam is offered and also other formalities of a puja are performed so far as the Jothi worship is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Institution is one of a religious denomination of public nature.2. In Sri Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt v. Commissioner : AIR1952Mad613 it was held that the profession of religion implies, the right of the person who believes in a religion to state his creed and also to propogate it either by speech or by writing or by any other visible means. The practice of religion is the practical expression of his belief in the particular form of private or public worship. Religion has been defined by Field, J., in Davis v. Benson (1980) 133 U.S.333 : 33 Law Ed. 637 as meaning 'a man's views of his relatio...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thangiah Vs. K. Rangaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ136
ORDERPadmini Jesudurai, J.1. This revision by the tenant, is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, rejecting as not maintainable, his application under Rule 16(3) bf the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control.) Rules, 1974 (herein-after referred to as the Rules) read with Section 148, C.P.C. filed to restore his earlier application under Rule 16 dismissed for failure to pay costs with in the, stipulated time and which had been filed to restore his appeal against the order of eviction, which had been dismissed for default.2. Facts briefly are-The respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 38 of 1983 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Thirumangalam, against the petitioner on the ground of wilful default, in the payment of rent. Eviction was ordered, against which the petitioner filed R.C.A. No. 11 of 1985 before the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Madurai. On 16.7.1985 due to the absence of the petitioner and also his counsel and there being no representation ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Kannusamy Vs. V.V.K. Samy and Co., Singapore and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Mad336
ORDER1. The second defendant in O.S. 36 of 1985, who is also the,defendant in O.S. 37 of 1985, Additional District Judge's court of Pondicherry at Karaikkal, is the petiti.,,)ner in these civil revision petitions. In O.S. 36 of 1985, the first respondent in C.R.P. 4456 of 1937 prayed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,80,228-22 with subsequent interest and costs against the petitioner and three others (respondents 2 to 4 in C.R.P. 4456 of 1987) on the basis of an instrument styled as a promissory note dated 12-1-1984 executed in favour of V. V. K. Samy outside India. Similarly O.S.- 37 of 1985, the respondent in C.R.P. 4457 of 1987 prayed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,33,106-07 with subsequent interestand costsagainstthe petitioner therein on th* basis of an instrument dated 12-1-1984 settled against asa promissory note executed in favourof V. V. K. Samy outside India. For the purposes of these civil revision petitions, it is not necessary to notice in extenso. the defences raised...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›