Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1987)1MLJ287
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition runs in the following terms:For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Orders, directions or writs as the case may be and in particular issue a writ in the nature of certiorari after calling for the concerned records from the 2nd respondent relating to G.O.Ms. No. 8 71, Labour and Employment Department dated 18.4.1980 (filed and marked as Exhibit 'A') quash the said Order dated 18.4.1980 issued by the 2nd respondent (Exhibit 'A')(ii) award costs and render justice.The Government Order referred to in the prayer in the writ petition is one made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Central Act 14 of 1947' making the following reference for industrial adjudication to the third respondent:Whether the non-employment, of 53 Beedi Rollers in the Annexure II below is justif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ432
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 135 of 1979 on the file of First Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry is the petitioner herein. An Ex Parte decree was passed on 27.1.1981 and defendants filed I.A. No. 824 of 1981 to condone the delay of 46 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the petition to set aside the Ex Parte decree; and I.A. No. 825 of 1981 was filed to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27.1.1981.2. The trial Court set aside the Ex Parte decree and thereupon, plaintiff preferred C.R.P. No. 4555 of 1981, and it was contended that as defendants had withdrawn I.A. No. 824 of 1981; I.A. No. 825 of 1981 should have been automatically dismissed; whereas it was contended by defendants that I.A. No. 824 of 1981 was withdrawn on a suggestion made by the Court that such an application was not necessary in accord with the law of limitation applicable to Union Territory of Pondicherry.3. The learned Judge by remitting the matter to the trial Court, had restored to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1989Mad111; (1988)IIMLJ1
1. These two civil Revision petitions are coming before us on a reference being made by one of us, namely, Sathiadev J., to decide the question as to whether Court-fee is payable on one half of the value of the properties, on an application filed under Sections 276 and 222 of the Succession Act, for grant of Probate regarding a Will when the matter becomes contentious.2. The petitioner in C.R.P. 1878 of 1987 filed the petition in O.P. 5 of 1985 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchinapalli, under Sections 276 and 222 of the Succession Act praying for the grant of Probate of the Will of the deceased Ignatious dt. 22-7-1981. Similarly, petitioner in C.R.P. 2052 of 1987 filed the petition in O.P. 323 of 1983 praying for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased T. Arokiasami Odayar with his Will dt. 22-11-1982. In both these petitions, the respondents Contested and, therefore, the matter become contentious before the learned Dist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ1
ORDERSivasubramaniam, J.1. These two civil revision petitions are coming before us on a reference being made by one of us, namely, Sathiadev, J., to decide the question as to whether court-fees is payable on one half of the value of the properties, on an application filed under Sections 276 and 222 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate regarding a Will when the matter becomes contentious.2. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1878 of 1987 filed the petition in O.P. No. 5 of 1985 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli under Sections 276 and 222 of the Indian Succession Act praying for the grant of probate of the Will of the deceased Ignatious dated 22.7.1981. Similarly, the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2052 of 1987 filed the petition in O.P. No. 323 of 1983 praying for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased T. Arokiaswami Odayar with his Will dated 22.11.1982. In both these petitions, the respondents contested and, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ168
ORDERRatnam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order of the Land Tribunal, Madurai in L.T.C.M.A. No. 62 of 1983, confirming the order of the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tirunelveli, holding that the sales effected by the petitioner on 25.2.1970 and 27.2.1970 in favour of one Dr. Muthukumarasami and one Milappa Pillai, respectively are void.2. The petitioner held lands in excess of the ceiling area under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 58 of 1961 as amended by Act 17 of 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 15.2.1970. Between the date of the commencement of the Act, viz., 15.2.1970 and the notified date, viz., 2-10-1970, the petitioner executed two sale deeds on 25.2.1970 and 27.2.1970 in relation to 1 acre and 64 cents and 7 acres and 56 cents of lands in favour of Dr. Muthukumarasami and S.Millappa Pillai. Proceedings were initiated under Section 22 of the Act with reference to the sales so executed by the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1991Mad319; (1991)IMLJ271
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J. 1. The judgment dated 9-3-1988 in O.S. No. 79 of 1987 on the flic of the District Judge, Kanyakumari dissolving the marriage of the plaintiff/husband with the 1st defendant/ wife under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) hereinafter referred to an 'the Act') on the ground that the 1st defendant has been guilty of adultery is placed before us for confirmation under S. 17 of the Act.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, a Christian, married in 1975 the 1st defendant who was a Hindu then, according to 'seerthirutha' form of marriage and also brought forth a child. The further case is that the 1st defendant developed illicit intimacy with other men during the time when the plaintiff used to go for his daily work, that on 16-5-1987 when the plaintiff returned home from the place of work unusually earlier, he found the 1st defendant 'keeping bed' with the 2nd defendant, that he reprimanded her for her immoral act, that she then left the house and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1992)1MLJ202
ORDERRaju, J.1. These three writ appeals are dealt with together since common issues, both on facts and law, are involved for consideration. The above appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge, dated 25.3.1983 made inW.P. Nos. 3684 of 1977, 5006 and 5007 of 1978 which were disposed of along with a batch of similar cases.2. The respondent herein, which is a Co-operative Spinning Mills, started functioning from 15.8.1964 and commenced commercial production on 5.2.1966. The respondent has been engaged in the manufacture of fine count yarn used in Handloom Industry and effects supply of its product mainly to handloom weavers which is the primary object of the respondent functioning under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made there under. The only raw material required for the manufacture of fine count yarn is cotton and the respondent purchased the required cotton lint both from the local producers in the State as well...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1991]191ITR397(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The petitioner, a tea estate in the Nilgiris, has moved this court against the order of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal holding, inter alia, that (i) the income received by way of sales of barks of wattle trees can only be treated as agricultural income falling under the scope of section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act and (ii) sales of cut trees (loosely termed as firewood) will also attract tax under the said Act. 2. The cases relate to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. It is not in dispute that the petitioner grew tea in the estates owned by it in the Nilgiris, It, however, sold wattle bark and firewood for Rs. 1,51,716 and timber for Rs. 1,95,000 during the assessment year 1973-74. The Central Income-tax Officer, however, did not include these amounts in the assessment for taxes. But the Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 35 and revise the assessment by including a sum of Rs. 1,51,71...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1992Mad354; [1992]197ITR625(Mad)
ORDERJanarthanam, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 10th day of February, 1982 by a learned single Judge in application No. 1718 of 1981 in C.S. No. 83 of 1965 on the file of this court.2. C.S. No. 83 of 1965 was one in partition action of the estate of late Chidambaram Chettiar. Out of seven heirs, one of the heirs, namely, Meenakshi Achi, figuring as plaintiff, brought the said partition action, im-pleading the rest of the heirs as defendants 1 to 6. By consent, a preliminary dceree had been passed declaring the entitlement of 1 / 7th share in the said estate to each of them. The estate was burdened with the obligations of meeting the pressing demands of huge arrears of Income-tax, Wealth Tax, Urban Land Tax, Property tax and what not. In order to relieve the pressure on the estate, this Court on 26-4-1977, directed an Advocate-Commissioner to sell two items of immovable properties belonging to the estate, namely, house, ground and premises bearing Nos. 5, 5-A and 6-B, Wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1993Mad144; (1993)IMLJ183
1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs, ten in number, are the appellants. Having initially failed before the authorities under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in their O. A. No. 20 of 1969 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H. R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department and the subsequent appeal, A. P. No. 56 of 1975, on the file of the Commissioner, H. R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department, they filed 0. S. No. 61 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, to set aside the order in A. P. No. 56 of 1975 and consequently to allow their petition, O. A. No. 20 of 1969. The said suit filed under Section 70 of the Act was dismissed and hence this appeal.2. The abovesaid authorities negatived the plaintiff's prayer for declaration that they are the hereditary trustees of the suit temple. According to the plaint, suit temple was built by the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 with the funds supplied by the family of all plaintiffs in the year 1921, all of t...
Tag this Judgment!