Chennai Court September 1989 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.
Bhageerathi Ammal Vs. Kuppalammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ463
Bellie, J.1. The main question arising in the second appeal filed by the plaintiff is interpretation of two vital documents. The suit is for partition. It relates to three houses situate from north to south and numbered respectively as Door No. 27, 26 and 25. These three houses originally belonged to one Kaveriammal. She had four daughters and one son. The daughters are: The plaintiff Bhageerathiammal, first defendant Kuppalanmmal, mother of the second defendant Thangammal, and fourth defendant Lakshmi. Kaveriammal mortgaged the properties under three documents viz., Exc.A4 dated 13.11.1919, and Exs.A5 and A6 both dated 8.6.1928. then Kaveriammal executed two sale deeds in respect of the middle house and southern house in favour of second defendant's mother Thangammal under Ex.A7 dated 31.7.1981 and Ex.A8 dated 4.9.1931.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that Thangammal did not discharge the mortgages under Exs.A4 to A6 as directed in the sale deeds Exs.A7 and A8 executed in her favour...
T. Marimuthu Handloom Factory, Madurai, Kandasamy Textiles, Handloom M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1989
Reported in: (1990)ILLJ555Mad
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. In these two writ petitions, orders passed under S. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, are being challenged. Though the petitioners are different, the facts are similar and the arguments are identical. Hence, the petitions were heard together. 2. An order under S. 7A of the Act was passed on 19th October 1973 against the petitioner in W.P. No. 8683 of 1982 and communicated to him. He had filed a petition under S. 19A of the Act before the Government of India questioning the applicability of the Act. He filed W.P. No. 1599 of 1974 in this Court for forbearing the respondents from enforcing the order passed under S. 7A of the Act. The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to serve a copy of the order passed by the Central Government under S. 19A of the Act on 14th August 1975 on the petitioner and then proceed further in accordance with law. The Central Government had decided that the Act was applicable to the petition...
Venkateshwara Stainless Steel and Wire Industries Vs. U.O.i.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1989
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT312(Mad)
S. Mohan, Off. C.J.1. All these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment. They arise out of the order passed by our learned brother Nainar Sundaram, J., in W.P. No. 4062 to 4067 of 1980. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions were as follows : We will confine ourselves to the facts in W.A. No. 321 of 1987 which will be sufficient to highlight the issue. The petitioners-appellants are a Small Scale Unit holding Registration Certificate No. 18/07/20688/PMT/SSI dated 7-12-1976. They are manufactures of Stainless Steel Utensils among other things. For the purpose of the manufacture of stainless steel utensils, they import Stainless Steel Circles. They imported H. T. Stainless Steel Circles as per s.s. S. 737 for the manufacture of stainless steel utensils and cleared the goods under Bill of Entry No. 147 dated 4-9-1979. The duty was assessed by the concerned Customs Officer under the Item 73.15(2) of the Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 3. ...
K.R.M.V. Ponnuswamy Nadar Sons (Firm) and ors. Vs. Union of India and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1989
Reported in: [1992]196ITR431(Mad)
S. Mohan, Offg. C.J.1. In all these cases, the validity of section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to April 1, 1989, is questioned before us. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid section imposes an obligation on the part of any person who, should he accept a loan or deposit, over and above the value of Rs. 10,000 (as it stood then) otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, will be punishable under section 276DD; this does not even provide a reasonable cause; supposing it is a case of mere return of the amount due on account of business, even then, if the assessee happens to get a sum of Rs. 20,000 or even if he had obtained a loan, for which he may have a very valid explanation, all that is disregarded, straightway; a punishment is sought to be imposed; therefore, the said section is draconian in its nature. 3. In answer to these arguments, learned counsel for the Department, Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram,...
Special Thasildar-15, Land Acquisition Vs. P.R. Govindarajalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ402
Ratnam, J.1. These appeals, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', have been preferred by the Special Tahsildar No. 15, Land Acquisition, Neyveli-2, against the order passed by the Sub-Court, Cuddalore, in LA.O.P. Nos. 113 and 112 of 1983, on references made to that court under Section 18 of the Act2. Briefly stated, the circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under: Forthe purpose of second mine cut project of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., ('N.L.C.' for short), large extents of land in Vadakkuvellur village Vridhachalam taluk, were acquired under the provisions of the Act. Amongst the lands so acquired, the respondent in these appeals was the owner of the following:Appeal No. 996 of 1985:S. No. Survey No. Classification Extent1. 308/7 Wet 0.15.02. 308/8 ' 0.33.53. 308/9 ' 0.25.04. 308/10 ' 0.24.55. 308/11 ' 0.11.56. 308/12 ' 0.05.07. 308/13 ' 0.41.58. 308/14 ' 0.14.09. 308/15 ' 0.14.0Appeal No. 997 of 1985:S. No. Survey N...
Kosalam Rowther Vs. S. Kandasamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ444
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, staying further proceedings in R.E.P. No.4 of 1988 in R.C.O.P. No. 111 of 1978, on an application under Order 21, Rule 29, Civil Procedure Code, taken out by the respondent herein.2. Briefly stated, the circumstances giving rise to the civil revision petition are as follows: The petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. III of 1978 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Salem, under Sections 10(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, praying for an order of eviction against the respondent herein (who was the second respondent therein) and another. On 13-9-1978, when the application for eviction came up for final hearing, a joint endorsement was made by the petitioner and the respondent herein, after giving up the first respondent in R.C.0.P. N0. III of 1978, in the following terms:On the ba...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.V. Narasimhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Mad)141; [1990]181ITR101(Mad)
Venkataswami, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'C', Madras, has referred to us for our opinion the following question of law, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act') : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the capital gains of Rs. 32,500 that arose on the sale of the residential house of the assessee at Tiruppattur during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1975-75 ?' 2. The brief facts leading to this reference are the following : The respondent/assessee owned two residential houses, one at Tiruppattur and another at No. 19, Pinjala Subramaniam Road, Madras-17. The house at Tiruppattur which was in his enjoyment for residential purpose was sold by him on May 24, 1974, for a sum of Rs. 45,000. By that sale, admittedly, he has earned capital gain to an exte...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Inden Biselers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: (1990)81CTR(Mad)185; [1990]181ITR69(Mad)
Bhaskaran, J.1. In this tax case, the following question of law has been referred at the instance of the Revenue : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 2,09,768 was allowable as a deduction for the purpose of determining the total income of the assessee for the assessment year 1963-64 ?' 2. The brief facts leading to this reference are as follows : The assessee, Inden Biselers, Madras, a firm exporting minerals and ores to foreign countries, has entered into a contract for supply of 1,50,000 tons of iron ore to the State Trading Corporation. To facilitate transport, the assessee entered into an agreement with one Central Mining Corporation, a proprietary concern, on June 15, 1960. Under the terms of the said agreement, the said Corporation undertook to ply all its ten Fargo trucks, purchased under the hire-purchase scheme of Sundaram Finance Private Ltd., exclusively to the assessee. The Corporation had to transport iron ore from the mines to the ...
Secretary T.N.E.B. Accounts Subordinate Union Vs. Tamil Nadu Electrici ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1989
Reported in: (1994)ILLJ1128Mad
Nainar Sundaram J. 1. The appellant raised an industrial dispute over the withdrawal by the first-respondent of the concession shown to the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts Subordinates Union and the Joint Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Workers Federation in that they were fully exonerated of the obligations to attend to their normal work as employees of the first- respondent and were allowed to attend to full time union work. This concession was earlier granted by the proceedings of the first-respondent dated January 18, 1973, effective from September 30, 1972 afternoon. This was withdrawn after the end of March 31, 1976. The industrial dispute got referred for adjudication before the third respondent in I.D. No. 239 of 1977. The question that was referred for adjudication read as follows: 'Whether the action of management in having withdrawn the concession of the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts Subordinates Union a...
Nallammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ1728
Arunachalam, J.(1) The petitioner in the main writ as well as the writ miscellaneous petition is the wife of the detenu, Manickam, who was lodged at the time of filing of the writ petition in the Central Ex-Prison, Salem, in pursuance of the order of detention made by the second respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, XIV of 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The detenu was detained as a bootlegger. (2) The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 18-11-1987 and notice was ordered to the respondents. The docket entries show that on 25-4-1988 this Court directed filing of the counter by the respondents by 14-6-1988. On 29-11-1988 on the request of the counsel for the petitioner, the hearing was adjourned by two weeks. Again on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 9-1-1989 the hearing wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›