Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1978 Page 1 of about 13 results (0.026 seconds)

Feb 02 1978 (HC)

The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. K.S. Sheik Mohid ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-02-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad37; [1978]115ITR243(Mad)

..... ' or for that matter 'goodwill' seem to indicate an inconsistency in the scheme of the act which is irreconcilable. it is not possible to find out the intent and the rationale in the apparent discrepancy of treating capital assets acquired under gifts in a manner entirely different from capital assets in the form of import entitlements, which also are acquired without .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1978 (HC)

Salem Chemical Industries, a Registered Firm Vs. Bird and Co. (P) Ltd. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-05-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad16

..... one place, the intention of the parties was taken to be to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the court where the cause of action was deemed to have taken place. the rationale of that decision is this : under section 20(c), c. p. c., the court within whose jurisdiction the entire cause of action or a part of the cause of action .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1978 (HC)

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brakes India Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-22-1978

Reported in : [1979]118ITR820(Mad)

..... at least there should be one rupee which is chargeable under the head 'salaries' in order to attract the provisions of the proviso. we are also unable to find any rationale or logic for not giving the benefit of the proviso to a case where no part of the amount paid is chargeable under the head 'salaries '. we, accordingly, hold that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 1978 (HC)

Pavunambal Vs. Ramaswamy and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-24-1978

Reported in : (1979)2MLJ273

..... required to be judged by courts on the basis also of the time-factor between the cause of action and the institution of the petition. if this is the real rationale behind the provision, as i believe it is, then the mere passage of time or its length alone cannot be a decisive factor in every case. it would really depend .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 1978 (HC)

Panthanam Ammal and ors. Vs. K. Srinivasa Ayyangar, and Sons Through O ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-20-1978

Reported in : (1979)1MLJ253

m.m. ismail, j.1. this civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of the order of the learned i additional subordinate judge of madurai, dated 11th august, 1977 made in g.m.a. no. 88 of 1977 on his file reversing the order of the learned principal district munsif of madurai town, dated 21st april, 1976 made in i.a. no. 769 of 1975 filed under sections 7 and 15 of the tamil nadu debt relief act. 1972, tamil nadu act xxxviii of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the act. the act was published in the tamil nadu government gazette on 15th december, 1972. sub-section (1) of section 7 of the act stated that where any debtor has paid to any creditor twice the amount of the principal whether by way of principal or interest or both, such debt including the principal, shall be deemed to be wholly discharged. this is a benefit conferred on a debtor to enable him to scale down the debt due by him. section 15 of the act dealt with cases where decrees have been passed before the publication of the act and it made provision for giving the benefit to a judgment-debtor even after the decree has been passed. sub-section (1) of section 15 of the act without the proviso reads a follows:where before the publication of this act, a court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt, it shall, on the application of any judgment-debtor who is a debtor within the meaning of this act, or in respect of a hindu joint family debt, on the application of any judgment-debtor who is a debtor within the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1978 (HC)

A. Annamalai and ors. Vs. Saraswathi Ammal and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-23-1978

Reported in : AIR1979Mad238

1. this civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings. it raises a point of construction of section 15(1) of tamil nadu act xxxviii of 1972. this enactment was avowedly passed to provide for the relief of certain indebted persons in the state. briefly stated, the act confers a right on certain debtors, and in certain conditions, to apply to the court for scaling down their debts under section 15. there is a time-limit provide for under this section. the time-limit is six months from the date of publication of the act. it may be observed that the act was published in the gazette on 15th december, 1972. section 15 contains two sub-sections. sub-section (1) deals with a case where a decree has been passed before the publication of the act in the official gazette. sub-section (2), on the other hand, deals with a case where in a respect of a debt payable on the date of the publication of the act in the official gazette, a decree has been passed subsequent to the date of the said publication.2. the appellants before me, who are the judgment-debtors, filed an application under section 15(1) of the act and asked for relief. the decree against them was passed on 15th february, 1965, prior to the publication of the act in the official gazette.3. the learned subordinate judge, however, dismissed the judgment-debtor's application as time-barred. he did so because the application was filed only on 25th april, 1974, which was beyond six months from the date of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1978 (HC)

Sarojini Ammal and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-13-1978

Reported in : AIR1980Mad16

1. the petitioners in all these petitions are landlords who have let out their lands to tenants for cultivation and have either filed applications for eviction before the revenue court on the ground that the tenants have committed default in payment of the arrears of rent or filed suits in civil courts for recovery of the arrears of rent. all these petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the tamil nadu cultivating tenants arrears of rent (relief) act, madras act xxi of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the act, on the ground that the provisions of the said act are violative of arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the constitution, of india. according to them, the provisions of the act practically liquidate the rights of the land lords and prevent eviction even: when the tenants are admittedly in arrears, that the tenants who art in arrears for several years are entitled to continue in possession of the leasehold property if they pay the current rent alone, that no application for eviction can even be made for six months from the date of the publication of the act, that even tenants who have been evicted are enabled to get restoration of possession merely on payment of the current rent, that the provisions of the act which are drastic in nature practically deprive the owners of the land of their lawful income from the properties, that while the owners are obliged to pay taxes and other rates to the state, they are deprived of the only income from which they can .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1978 (HC)

Sarojini Ammal Represented by Power of Attorney Agent, A. Gopalan and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-13-1978

Reported in : (1979)1MLJ425

orderg. ramanujam, j.1. the petitioners in all these petitions are landlords who have let out their lands to tenants for cultivation and have either filed applications for eviction before the revenue court on the ground that the tenants have committed default in payment of the arrears of rent. all these petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the tamil nadu cultivating tenants' arrears of rent (relief) act, (madras act xxi of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the act, on the ground that the provisions of the said act are violative of articles 14, 19 and 31 of the constitution of india. according to them, the provisions of the act practically liquidate the rights of the landlords and prevent eviction even when the tenants are admittedly in arrears, that the tenants who are in arrears for several years are entitled to continue in possession of the leasehold property if they pay the current rent alone, that no application for eviction can even be made for six months from the date of the publication of the act, that even tenants who have been evicted are enabled to get restoration of possession merely on payment of the current rent, that the provisions of the act which are drastic in nature and practically deprives the owners of the land of their lawful income from the properties, that while the owners are obliged to pay taxes and other rates to the state, they are deprived of the only income from which they can hope to meet those taxes and public .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1978 (HC)

State Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator, Straps (India) Private Lt ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-19-1978

Reported in : [1979]49CompCas514(Mad)

ismail, j. 1. this is an appeal against the order of ramaprasada rao. j., dated 23rd june, 1977, made in company application no. 551 of 1976. the applicant in the company application is the appellant, which is the state bank of india, madras-1. the said bank instituted a suit, o.s. no. 117 of 1974, on the file of the court of the subordinate judge, chingle-put, which has been transferred to and numbered as c.s. no. 233 of 1974, on the original side of this court. the suit was originally instituted against 10 defendants, the first defendant being one messrs. chandra paper band, defendants 2 to 9, being the partners of the said first defendant firm and the 10th defendant, being the official liquidator. high court, madras. the suit was for the recovery of a sum of rs. 1,99,170.04 with further interest at 10 1/2% per annum on rs. 1,25,700.28 at half yearly rests and at 9 1/4% per annum on rs. 38,797'85 at monthly rests, from the defendants and in default for a direction for the sale of the mortgaged property set out in schedule a to the plaint and application of the net proceeds thereof in payment of the amount to be decreed with rights reserved in the appellant to proceed against defendants 2 to 9 personally for the balance, if any, due after adjustment of the proceeds of such sale to the suit claim. such a relief was prayed for on the allegation that the first defendant by its partners, defendants 2 to 9, applied to the appellant for grant of credit facilities and to secure the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 1978 (HC)

Fathima Bivi and ors. Vs. Bhavasa Maracair and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-12-1978

Reported in : (1979)1MLJ409

t. ramaprasada rao, j.1. as against a common judgment rendered by the learned subordinate judge of chidambaram in two original suits tried by him collectively and numbered as o.s. no. 43 of 1970 and o.s. no. 48 of 1973 on his file, the above appeals arise.2. we shall here deal with substantive rights as between the sharers in the estate of one abdul azeez maracair who died in the year, 1962. he married, according to the plaintiffs, only twice, but according to others, thrice. the plaintiffs are the sons and daughter of abdul azeez maracair (hereinafter referred to as azeez) through his second wife. the first defendant is his first wife. the sixth defendant whose marriage with azeez is disputed is the third wife. the 7th and 8th defendants are the son and daughter respectively of azeez through the third wife and defendants 9 to 11 are the sons of the second wife through her earlier marriage with another person. defendants 2 to 5 are admittedly the predecessors of the plaintiffs' share in the estate of azeez in so far as suit items 7, 8 and 10 are concerned. the case of the plaintiffs is that the 6th defendant is not a lawfully wedded third wife of azeez and in consequence, defendants 7 and 8, though impleaded as parties formally to this litigation, are not entitled to any share in the estate of azeez. they would also contend that defendants 9 to 11 are not entitled to any share even as heirs of their mother who was the second wife of azeez and who is also the mother of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //