Chennai Court November 1990 Judgments
C. Pandithurai Vs. Jaithoon Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)330MLJ1
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Madurai Town is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.2. The petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1987 against the respondent for eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960. The case of the petitioner in the above mentioned R.C.O.P. is as follows : The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned premises. The respondent is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 75. The respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent for 17 months for the period from 17.11.1979 to 12.4.1981 and on the date of the filing of the petition for eviction, the arrears of rent due from the respondent comes to Rs. 1,275. The respondent s...
Tag this Judgment!D. Venkatesan Vs. Lalitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)297MLJ1
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. This revision is against the order of the Family Court, made in Interlocutory application No. 335 of 1989. That application was under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. It is not disputed that the respondent had also filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and had obtained an order directing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month. Taking note of that direction and the pay of the petitioner as indicated in EX. B-1, the Family Court has fixed Rs. 400 per month including the maintenance of Rs. 250ordered under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. to be paid from 9.9.1985, the dale of filing the application I.A. No. 335 of 1989. By way of litigation expenses the court had directed a payment of Rs. 1,000. It is this order which is challenged by the husband in this revision.2. I am unable to see any ground to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The maintenance of Rs. 400 ...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Hajee Sahib Vs. S. Mohammed Haneef
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)466MLJ1
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 4740 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (9th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order by the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act, for eviction of the respondent from the demised premises on the ground of owner's occupation.3. The application for eviction was resisted by the respondent contending that the requirement of the demised premises by the petitioner for the occupation of his married daughter is not bona fide.4. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the respondent and dismissed R.C.O.P. No. 4740 of 1983 on 12.8.1987. On 21.8.1987 the petitioner filed an appeal against...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Abuthagir and ors. Vs. Peer Mohammed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1990
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ172
Thanikkachalam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 250 of 1970 dated 5.11.1980 on the file of Sub-court, Dindigul. Defendants 3 to 5 are the appellants herein. The suit was filed in a representative capacity for cancellation of the suo motu scheme framed by the Special Officer, Wakf Board, dated 17.8.1968 in W.A. No. 9 of 1968 and for a direction to frame a single consolidated scheme for the suit Pallivasals. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed f6r with costs. It is against that judgment and decree the present first appeal has been filed by the defendants 3 to 5.2. In the plaint, the case of the plaintiffs is as under: In Cumbum town from ancient time, there was only one mosque called Vaveer Pallivasal or Bava Fakruddin Pallivasal or 'Big Mosque'. All the original Muslim in habitants of Cumbum used to pray in the said Mosque. They constituted a Jamath known as Cumbum town Jamath. There are two other Pallivasals, known as Mohideen An...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR655(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that registration of a conveyance deed transferring certain buildings by the Government to the assess is not required and depreciation claimed should be granted ?' 2. By G.O. Ms. No. 1899, dated August 24, 1970, three raw material depots at Guindy, Madurai and Coimbatore were transferred by the Government of Tamil Nadu to the control of the assessee for Rs. 59,74,000. The sale consideration was adjusted as under : Rs.Subcription of share capital by the Governmentto the appellant 50,00,000Grant of loan by the Government to the appellant 9,74,000--------------59,74,000-------------- 3. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for depreciation on the ground that the ownership of ...
Tag this Judgment!Southern Refractories and Minerals and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC387(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. T.C. Nos. 302 of 1981, 303 of 1981 and T.C. No. 250 of 1990 are all by the same assessee, Southern Refractories and Minerals, while T.C. No. 187 of 1986 is by the assessee, Carborandum Universal Limited. All these four revision cases are under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The common question involved in the tax revision cases filed by the assessee, Southern Refractories and Minerals is whether the 'castable refracting binding materials' sold by the assessee would fall under item 34 of the First Schedule to the Act and consequently be subject to single point tax, as per section 3(2) of the Act, or would not fall so and be subject to multi-point tax under section 3(1) of the Act. These three tax revision cases deal with assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1984-85, respectively. Tax Case No.187 of 1986 also deals with the question, 'whether the refractory materials called cumicrete sold by the petitioner/asses...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaram Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: [1991]82STC194(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. In all these four tax (revision) cases, the common question of law for decision by this Court is, whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the re-rubberising transactions of the assessee-petitioner were 'sales' liable for levy of tax, and not works contract, entitled to exemption from the levy of sales tax. 2. T.C. (R) No. 967 of 1988 is with reference to the disputed turnover of Rs. 10,38,537 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the assessment year 1980-81. T.C. (R) No. 968 of 1988 is with reference to the disputed turnover of Rs. 5,73,969 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the same assessment year 1980-81. T.C. (R) No. 969 of 1988 is with reference to the disputed turnover of Rs. 11,38,979.22 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, for the assessment year 1981-82. T.C. (R) No. 970 of 1988 is with reference to the disputed turnover of Rs. 4,80,042.74 under the Central Sales Tax Act for ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Baheerathy and ors. Vs. Kanagarathinam (Died) Represented by Her L. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)281MLJ1
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The legal representatives of the respondent (tenant) in H.R.C.O.P. No. 27 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller, Karaikkal, are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The legal representatives of the petitioner (landlady) in the said H.R.C.O.P. are the respondents in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the H.R.C.O.P.2. The petitioner filed H.R.C.O.P. No.27 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller, Karaikkal under Section 1O(2)(a)(i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, I960, hereinafter called 'the Act', for eviction on the ground that the petition mentioned premises is required for her own occupation.3. The respondents resisted the application contending that the petitioner's requirement for her own occupation is not bona fide.4. The Rent Controller, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, held that the requirement of the de...
Tag this Judgment!Elite Optical Industries Vs. Assistant Director of Enforcement
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: 1992(40)ECC88; 1991(56)ELT16(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in E.O.C.O. No. 650 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences) No. 1 Madras. 2. Accused 1 is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of spectacle frames which are sold locally as well as exported. Accused 2 is one of the partners of accused 1 firm and he is looking after the affairs connected with the import and export in the firm. 3. The Intelligence Wing of the Income-tax Department, Madras searched the office premises of accused 1 firm on 6-7-1982 as well as the residential premises of accused 2, Certain incriminating documents were seized during the course of search. The Deputy Director of Inspection, [Intelligence], Income-tax, Madras-34 given information to the office of the Assistant Collector, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, 26, Haddows Road, Madras-6 the respondent herein about the seizure of the documents, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA' for short....
Tag this Judgment!Engine Valves Ltd. Vs. Labour Court, Madras and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ372Mad
Raju, J. 1. The above appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single judge dated 16th June, 1987, made in Writ Petition No. 2407 of 1981, dismissing Writ Petition No. 2407 of 1981 filed by the appellant challenging the award of the Labour Court, dated 17th December, 1980 in I.D. No. 358 of 1977. 2. The appellant company has a factory near Madras, where it manufactures valves for internal combustion engines. The second respondent had been in the employment of the appellant for over 16 years and for about ten years, he was working as Setter Operator in the Head Disc. Department. The second respondent was allotted with the work of Crack Detection from 19th May, 1975 and he attended the work between 19th and 23rd May, 1975. After the weekly holidays on 26th May, 1975, it is claimed by the appellant that when the Foreman Mr. Kasi Viswanathan has allotted the detection work to the second respondent, he refused to do the said work and instead he walked straight to the Packing S...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »