Chennai Court December 1975 Judgments
M.S.M. Syed Mohammad Bukhari Vs. the Director of Enforcement, New Delh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1975
Reported in: AIR1977Mad23
1. This is an appeal under Sec. 23-EE of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by one M. S. M. Syed Mohammad Bukhari who was charged by the Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi under the provisions of the Act. There were three charges. The Director found the appellants guilty of the charges and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,500/-. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 23-E of the Act to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, but without success. Therefore this appeal under Section 23-EE of the Act has been filed. Under that section, a second appeal to this Court lies only on a question of law.2. The contention on behalf of the appellant before me has been that the Director had not followed the proper procedure laid down under the relevant rules framed under the Act, that he had found the appellant guilty without recording of evidence and that no opportunity had been given to the appellant to meet the charges. It was further con...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Khateeb Mahmood
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1975
Reported in: [1977]109ITR408(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee was formerly carrying on business in Ceylon in gold and gems from 1920 to 1958 as a partner in the firm of Messrs. Khateeb & Bros. He left Ceylon for good in 1958 and settled down at Kayalpatnam in India. On July 2, 1964, the customs authorities searched the premises No. 90, Naina Street, Kayalpatnam, belonging to the son-in-law of the assessee and found a sum of Rs. 1,70,000 in ten rupee notes kept in two boxes which were buried in the earth in an open place in the house. On information relating to the discovery of this amount and the admission by the assessee that the money belonged to him, the Income-tax Officer started assessment proceedings invoking his power under Section 175 of the Act. He issued a notice under Section 139(2) on January 11, 1965. In response to this notice, the assessee filed a return on January 19, 1965, admitting an income of Rs. 5,000 under the head of 'Property income'. With reference to the sum of Rs. 1,70,000, it was explai...
Tag this Judgment!Kuttarasa Abdul Rahim and V. Muniammal Vs. the Chief Enforcement Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1975
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC145
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. As the points involved in all the above writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. The facts in all these cases are more or less the same and therefore the facts in the first case alone are set out hereunder.2. Room No. 11, Bhilai Lodge, Mount Road, Madras was searched on 6-7-1972 on receipt of information that the person staying in the said room had received a certain payment by order of a person resident abroad. During the search, 3 persons by name Abdul Gafoor, Abdul Malick and Abdul Hakeem were present in that room and Indian currency of Rs. 75,000 and certain documents were seized. When interrogated Abdul Gafoor stated that he was employed by the petitioner, that he used to collect monies from Madras and Tiruchirapalli as per instructions received from Singapore and that the amounts thus received were handed over to the petitioner for further disbursement. He had also stated that on 6-7-1972 he came to Madras on instructions of the petitioner f...
Tag this Judgment!Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1975
Reported in: (1976)IILLJ230Mad
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. Since both the above writ petitions filed by the same petitioner against the same respondent arise out of the same facts, they are dealt with together.2. Certain disputes arose between the petitioner-company and the third respondent-union arising out of a chapter of 48 demands raised by the union. The concerned Labour Officer held conciliation and sent a failure report on 21st December, 1974 to the first respondent. The first respondent by G.O. Rt. No. 1327, dated 19th June, 1975, referred ten of the demands for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal and in G.O. Rt. No. 1328, dated 19th June, 1975, declined adjudication on other demands raised by the union, Out of the ten demands referred, four related to revision of (1) dearness allowance, (2) pay scales, (3) duty allowance and (4) retirement age. The company had raised a counter demand in respect of these demands that there should be a reduction instead of enhancement as claimed by the workmen. Since these co...
Tag this Judgment!Kabilan Transports Private Ltd. Udumalpet and anr. Vs. Aswini Transpor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ439
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. These two revisions relate to the grant of Stage Carriage Permit to ply one additional bus on the route Udumalpet to Coimbatore. In response to the invitation of applications, 25 operators preferred their applications. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, granted the permit to Applicant No. 17, before it, viz., Messrs. Kabilan Transports (Private) Limited, Udumalpet. This was by its proceedings, dated 18th March, 1971.2. Five appeals were preferred against the said grant. The State. Transport Appellate Tribunal, by a common order, dated 18th March, 1972 set aside the grant made in favour of Messrs. Kabilan Transports (Private) Limited. The grantee before the Regional Transport Authority (Kabilan Transports Private Limited) has preferred C.R.P. No. 864 of 1972 in so far as the permit granted in its favour was set aside.3. Kannan Lorry Service (Private) Limited, Applicant No. 7 before the Regional Transport Authority (Appellant in Appeal No. 715 of 1972) has ...
Tag this Judgment!The Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ8
G. Ramanujam, J.1. Since both the above writ petitions filed by the same petitioner against the same respondent arise out of the same facts, they are dealt with together.2. Certain disputes arose between the petitioner-company and the third respondent-union arising out of a chapter of 48 demands raised by the union. The concerned Labour Officer held conciliation and sent a failure report on 21st December 1974 to the first respondent. The first respondent by G.O. Rt. No. 1327 dated 19th June, 1975 referred 10 of the demands. for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal and in G.O. Rt. No. 1328, dated 19th June, 1975, declined adjudication on other demands raised by the union. Out of the ten demands referred, four related to revision of (1) dearness allowance, (2) pay scales, (3) duty allowance and (4) retirement age. The company had raised a counter demand in respect of these demands that there should be a reduction instead of enhancement as claimed by the workmen. Since these counter de...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1975
Reported in: [1977]75STC397(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.The assessee returned a total taxable turnover of Rs. 58,46,514.48 in respect of the assessment year 1965-66. He had claimed in the return exemption in respect of a turnover of Rs. 8,00,789.23 on the ground that they are inter-State sales. The assessing officer considered that the contract entered into by him with respect to this turnover with Messrs. C. A. Galiakotwala and Co. (P.) Limited did not either occasion or contemplate movement of goods from one State to another and, accordingly, proposed to include this disputed turnover in the assessment and issued a preassessment notice. While submitting the objections, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 3(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, on the ground that the sale was effected by transfer of documents of title during the movement of the goods from one State to another. The assessing officer rejected this contention and held that they are all local sales and, accordingly, included the disputed turnover in t...
Tag this Judgment!The Union of India (Uoi) Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Works, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad387; (1976)2MLJ145
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The Union of India and the Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D. Madras, who were the defendants in O.S. No. 5383 of 1967, Gity Civil Court Madras, are the appellants. The Andhra Bank Limited, owned premises No. 6, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras-1, which had three floors. The Executive Engineer, C.P.W.D on behalfof the Union of India took on lease the second and the third floors of the above premises from 1st July, 1955 on a monthly rent of Rs; 1,150 and on an increased rent of Rs. 1,500 with effect from 1st July, 1959. Certain fittings and fixtures also formed part of the demise. The tenancy continued without any complexity till 30th June, 1962 by which time, the period of the lease expired. The plaintiffs under Exhibit B-2 made it known that on the expiry of the lease, they were not willing to renew the lease and also put on notice the defendants of the fact that they have not expressed their desire in writing for renewal of the lease as contemplated in the original agr...
Tag this Judgment!Gopaldas Purushothamdas Damani and ors. Vs. the Trustee of the Port of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ32
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1.The plaintiff's are the appellants. These two appeals arise out of the suits which were disposed of by a common judgment. Two different parties imported; certain quantities of Polythylene Resins Film Grade F. 822, from the Port of Kobe in Japan to the Port of Madras. The goods were carried by the vessel 'State of Andhra' owned by the Shipping Corporation of India which was made the second defendant in the two suits. The first defendant in both the suits is the Port Trust, Madras. The goods have been insured by one and the same Company, viz., the Calcutta Insurance Limited, which figures as the second plaintiff in both the suits. (The first plaintiff in the two suits is the respective consignee of the goods.)2. The vessel arrived at Madras Port on 4th October, 1968. When the cargo was discharged it was found that some bags were torn and the contents falling out. Even the tally sheets issued by the Port Trust, to which the Shipping Corporation of India is a party, wen...
Tag this Judgment!S.N. Sadasiva Chettiar and ors. Vs. T.K. Subramaniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ67
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The defendants are the appellants in S.A. No. 1600 of 1972 which arises out of A.S. No. 58 of 1970 which arose out of O.S. No. 952 of 1967. The plaintiffs are the appellants in S.A.No. 1675 of 1972 which arises out of A.S. No. 37 of 1970 which also arose out of the same suit. Both the appeals have been disposed of by the lower Appellate Court by a common judgment. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in S.A. No. 1675 of 1972.2. The appellants filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from putting up openings in their terrace and allowing the rain water and sullage water to flow adjacent to their wall and for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents to close the openings on the terrace of the respondents' house and remove the pipes and other things put up by them to abstract the rain and sullage water. for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from erecting and working a motor and pump-set in their prem...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »