Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1983 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.032 seconds)

Jan 17 1983 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K.A. Rajappa Chettiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-17-1983

Reported in : [1985]153ITR215(Mad)

..... income and, therefor, penalty cannot be levied on the basis that the original return did not disclose the true income. this contention was also replied. the court went into the rationale behind the statutory provision enabling the assessee to file a revised return. the court pointed out that a revised return can be filed by an assessee only in a case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1983 (HC)

T. Sivasankaran Vs. H.K.N. Kacharlal Sowcar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-14-1983

Reported in : AIR1984Mad37; (1984)1MLJ155

..... has also used the language 'for the occupation of his son', it is urged that this is an indication that, at least, a daughter is not taken into account. the rationale behind the inclusion of the son is that the ground of eviction should be available to a landlord for that occupation of his nearest kith and kin. where to draw .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1983 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. P. Mariappa Gounder

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-17-1983

Reported in : [1984]147ITR676(Mad)

..... (12) of the code concentrates more on the methodology of calculation of mesne profits rather than on what the true nature of mesne profits is. as we earlier stated, the rationale of awarding mesne profits is that the trespasser or the person in wrongful possession not only defies the title of the true owner, but also prevents the true owner from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 08 1983 (HC)

Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., Employees' Union vs. Asst. Commissioner of ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-08-1983

Reported in : (1983)ILLJ181Mad

..... in surplus. even the brother of the general secretary, who is a signatory to the impugned settlement, was discharged from service as he could not be confirmed as per the rationale arrived at between the third respondent-union and the management. in fact, several members of the petitioner-union stood to gain since they were confirmed and made permanent as a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1983 (HC)

Sahul Hameed Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-28-1983

Reported in : AIR1984Mad91; (1984)1MLJ272

k.b.n. singh, c.j. 1. all these writ appeals and petitions raise . a common question regarding the validity of. g. 0. ms. 200 home, dt. 16-8-1976 and have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. the said government order which is under challenge. has been passed by the government in the exercise of power conferred under s. 29 of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the act) exempting all the buildings owned by hindu,, christian and muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from all the provisions of the said act. earlier to the said government order g. 0. ms. no. 1998 home dated 12-8-1974, under section 29, (exempting all the buildings owned by the hindu, christian and muslim religious trusts and charitable institutions from all the provisions of the said act was passed. but, in supersession of the government order, the impugned government order was passed.2. learned counsel for the appellant in w. a. no. 488 of 1981 states that the appellant is in occupation of premises- no. 540 (new door no.'281) triplicane high road,' madras-5, on a monthly rent of rs. 60/_ under the second respondent, who 'is the chief tenant, under. the third respondent. second respondent filed h. r. c. no. 1941 of .1978 in the court of small causes, madras, for eviction on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation. it was dismissed as withdrawn on 12-12-1978, and thereafter the second respondent filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1983 (HC)

V. Ponnusamv and ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-25-1983

Reported in : AIR1984Mad156; (1983)IIMLJ459

mohan, j. 1. these writ petitions challenge the validity of the tamil nadu slum areas (improvement and clearance) act. 1971 (tamil nadu act i i of 1971). (throughout the course' of our judgment. it will be referred to as the act).2. since an identical point is in issue in all these writ petitions. it is enough if we refer to the facts in w. p. no. 140 of 1979 alone. the petitioner purchased a portion of the, 'rodent in r. s. no. 3969/11. tondiardet. madras from one a. sundararaian. for a sum of r3. 6.400 for the of constructing therein a residential house for his living. after raising a loan from his provident fund. the petitioner made necessary arrangements for the construction of the house. owing to some technical difficulties. the construction could not be taken our immediately. there is an oven solace in r. s. no. 3968/2 which is described as keri thottarn.3. the tamil nadu glum clearance board. madras. wanted to acquire this proverty. known as keerai thottam. for the nurvose of the slum clearance board. therefore. the government of tamil nadu. the first respondent. initiated proceedings under the act for the acquisition of the petitioner's -revert as well. the petitioner was served with a notice under s. 17 (2) of the act. he was called upon to show cause why the lands mentioned in the schedule to the notice should not be acquired. the petitioner and the owners of the adjacent volts referred their objection in the said acquisition contending that the lands were purchased .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1983 (HC)

Saroja Vs. the State and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-29-1983

Reported in : 1985(5)ECC37

orderratnavel pandian, j.1. the petitioner herein is seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of her husband chinnadurai alias durai, the detenu, now detained in the central prison, madras, in pursuance of an order of detention passed by the first respondent in g.o. ms. no. 236, public (law and order-d) department, dated 15th february, 1983 issued under section 3(1)(ii) of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the act).2. the grounds on which the detention order has been made are as follows:- on a specific information, the aranthangi customs officers arranged for a road block on aranthangi-avudayar koil level-crossing gate on the night of 13/14th august, 1982. at about 5 a.m. on 14th august, 1982, the officers noticed a standard van bearing registration no. msq 3095 coming towards aranthangi. the vehicle did not stop despite the signals given by the officials. however, the said vehicle stopped at a little distance as the level-crossing gate had already been closed at the instance of the officials. two persons who travelled in the vehicle escaped in the darkness. the officers caught hold of the third person whose name was revealed as thiru r.m. selvaraj, son of rayaiah servai, nadukudiyiruppu, perungudi avanam, ponpethi post, avudayar koil taluk. the vehicle contained 19 bags of foreign goods, viz., 820.80 metres of. 100 per cent polyester gaberdine suitings, 2,610 metres of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1983 (HC)

Bharat Match Works, Vanaramurthi and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-30-1983

Reported in : 1984(16)ELT3(Mad)

ramanujam, j.1. since the issues arising in all these writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. the petitioners in all these cases are manufacturers of matches and they have challenged the constitutional validity of s. 52 of the finance act of 1982, and the conditions imposed in notification no. 22/82 [gsr 77(e)/82], dated 23-2-1982, on the ground of violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india, as also on the ground that it is beyond the legislative competence of the parliament inasmuch as it purports to retain moneys which are not tax collected under the authority of law as provided for in art. 265 of the constitution of india. the petitioners have challenged the conditions imposed in the notification no. 22/82 [(gsr 77(e)/82] in regard to production and clearance also on the ground that it is arbitrary or irrational and discriminatory. 3. for appreciating the petitioners' said challenge, it is necessary to set out the circumstances and the background in which the said section 52 of the finance act came to be enacted giving retrospective effect to notification no. 22/82 gsr 77(e)/82, dated 23-2-1982. historically there was no manufacturer of safety matches in this country till about the year 1895. they were mainly imported from sweden and japan. for the first time a handful of 15 semi-mechanised safety match manufacturing industries came up and functioned during the period 1895 to 1923. in 1923 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1983 (HC)

N. Rahmath and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-30-1983

Reported in : 1988(38)ELT425(Mad)

ramanujam, j.1. since the issues arising in all these writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. 2. the petitioners in all these cases are manufacturers of matches and they have challenged the constitutional validity of section 52 of the finance act of 1982 and the conditions imposed in notification no. 22/82[gsr 77(e)/82] dated 23rd february, 1982, on the ground of violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india as also on the ground that it is beyond the legislative competence of the parliament inasmuch as it purports to retain monies which are not tax collected under the authority of law as provided for in article 265 of the constitution of india. the petitioners have challenged the conditions imposed in notification no. 22/82[gsr 77(e)/82] in regard to production and clearance also on the ground that it is arbitrary or irrational discriminatory. 3. for appeciating the petitioners' said challenge, it is necessary to set out the circumstances and the background in which the said section 52 of the finance act came to be enacted giving retrospective effect to notification no 22/82[gsr 77(e)/82] dated 23rd february, 1982. historically there was no manufacture of safety matches in this country till about the year 1895. they were mainly imported from sweden and japan. for the first time a handful of 15 semi-mechanised safety match manufacturing industries came up and functioned during the period 1895 to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1983 (HC)

K.S. Ameena Shapir Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Secr ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-10-1983

Reported in : (1984)1MLJ237

orders. mohan, j.1. the petitioner was originally a hindu. she belonged to pillaimar community. she got married to one janab shapir after em bracing islam. the marriage took place on 24th december, 1968. the husband of the petitioner belongs to muslim labbai community. the said community has been included in the list of backward classes. ever since her conversion to islam, the petitioner has been professing only islam. the community has also recognised her marriage. in addition to that, the petitioner and her daughter athya have been treated and accepted as members of her husband's community.2. she submitted an application for appointment as tutor in tamil nadu government arts college in the tamil nadu educational subordinate services on 30th july, 1973. along with her application she filed a certificate to the effect that she had embraced islam and that on her marrying janab shapir, she had been accepted by the members of her husband's community as one amongst them and consequent to conversion to islam, she bad become a labbai. in addition to that she also filed the following documents:(i) extract from the marriage register. (nikha book) muslim jamath of nagereoil (true copy of page 235 of 1968, dated 24th december, 1968) original.(ii) certificate from janab s.m. alavi sahib, dated 23rd april, 1973 who performed the conversion ceremony on 24th december, 1968 original)(iii) certificate of conversion to islam. dated 24th december, 1968 given by the presidend of the muslim .....

Tag this Judgment!


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