Chennai Court February 1976 Judgments
R. Gopal Rao Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ508
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same person.2. In the first writ petition he has challenged the validity of the memorandum, dated 22nd December, 1964, issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the respondent herein, calling upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule 15(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 within fifteen days from the date of the receipt of that memo. In the second writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the final order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the respondent herein, dated 26th October, 1972 reducing the petitioner from Class III to Class IV, and directing that the petitioner will not be eligible for promotion to any higher posts for a period of three years.3. As both the writ petitions arise out of the same disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and as the issues involved a...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. Metro Electrical Globes and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC188(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee in the first two cases, T.C. Nos. 243 and 442 of 1971, is a dealer in electrical goods. The two tax cases relate to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69, but raise a common question as to whether the globes or lamp-shades sold by them are taxable at single point under entry 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or it is an item of multiple taxation. In the other case, T.C. No. 77 of 1973, the tin protectors covering the street lights is the article in question and there again the question for consideration is whether it is liable for single point taxation under entry 41 or multi-point tax. The assessee in this case is different from that in the other two cases. In all these cases, the Tribunal purporting to follow its earlier decision in T.A. No. 3 of 1967 and T. A. No. 318 of 1966, wherein it had been held that cycle seat covers are not accessories, held that these globes or lamp-shades and the tin protectors of str...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Rubber Factory Limited and ors. Vs. Superintendent of Central E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1976
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT485(Mad)
1. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are practically the same, I find it convenient to dispose of them together.2. The petitioners in W P. No. 2180 of 1972, are The Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., who are manufacturers of automobile tyres under the brand name of 'Mansfield'. The tyres manufactured by the petitioners are sold to the consumers through dealers all over India. Their factory is situate at Thiruvottiyur which is outside the Madras City. For the purpose of effecting the sale of their tyres, they have a separate sales and technical service organisation independent of its manufacturing unit. In the year 1967, this sales organisation consisted of six sales divisions or districts, each one of the division consisting of 2 or 3 States and as many as 25 sales depots including branches, functioning under the Divisional or District Office. The petitioners do not enter into any sales of their tyres for delivery at the factory gate. On the other hand, they make the tyres...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. the Madras Advocates' Co-Operative Society ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC297(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. These six tax revision petitions arise out of the sales tax assessments for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69 in respect of the transactions in the canteen run by the Madras Advocates' Co-operative Society. The society is registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 (6 of 1932). One of the objects of the society is the running of a restaurant for the benefit of the members on a non-profit basis. On 22nd February, 1969, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade I Division, inspected the canteen and found that it was not. assessed to sales tax and it had not been registered under the Act. He issued a notice to produce the accounts which was complied with by the society. The society later on furnished the turnover particulars for the several years for which the particulars were required from the society. From the accounts, it was found that the canteen had effected sales for the different years of particular amounts, the details of which need not ...
Tag this Judgment!North Arcot District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (Now Ambur Co-opera ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC430(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Tax (Revision) Cases Nos. 411 and 412 of 1971 have been filed by the North Arcot District Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., now renamed as Ambur Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Vadapudupet, North Arcot District, in respect of the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The turnover in both these assessments related to a portion of the amount paid by the assessee to the cane-growers in respect of the supply of sugarcane made by them. The broad pattern of the business as between the growers and the sugar mills as found by the Tribunal is as follows :2. Before each crushing season, the mills enter into contracts with cane-growing ryots in the locality for delivering the sugarcane that will be cultivated and harvested in their fields. On the basis of this undertaking the mills also advance monies for the purchase of fertilisers and other cultivation activities, which amount is ultimately deducted from the price payable in respect of the sugarcane supplied by the ryots. The Sug...
Tag this Judgment!General Manager, Co-operative Super Market Vs. Additional Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ274Mad
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the order of the Labour Court, Madurai made in Claim Petition No. 276 of 1969, dated 17.3.1972.2. The short facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The second respondent was employed as a salesman in the grocery section in the writ petitioner's society from 31.10.1966 to 17.5.1957. As required by the bye-laws he had to pay a security deposit at the time of appointment. Accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs. 503. This was kept in the society to adjust any loss or damage caused as a result of the employee's negligence or misconduct. A stock deficit was found and the liability of the second respondent was fixed at Rs. 389.21 p. To account for this deficit, notice dated 5.1.1968 (Ext. M 3) was issued calling for explanation and ultimately by an order dated 31.5.1968 (Ext. M 4) this sum was adjusted towards the security deposit.3. The second respondent resigned his service in March. 1967. In June, 1969, he filed a claim petition under...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Owning the Southern Railway, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ110
Veeraswami, C.J.1. (O.S.A. Ms. 63 & 64 op 1970)--These are two appeals arising out of suits filed by two different plain tiffs for damages against the Railway, the second defendant-appellant in both the appeals, for its negligence in respect of the fire that destroyed 200 cotton bales consigned from Tadpatri to Renigunta, addressed to Self and to be cleared through R.R. to be cashed through bank by the consignee. The first defendant is Tirupathi Cotton Mills Ltd., and the second defendant, as we said, is the Railway. Balaji Trading Corporation at Tadpatri is the plaintiff in the suit out of which O.S.A. No. 63 of 1970 arises and Renganayakalu and Co., is the plaintiff in the suit out of which O.S.A. No. 64 of 1970 arises. The plaintiffs contracted with the first defendant mills for supply of 200 cotton bags in each case. Both the contracts were on the same day, 27th April, 1965. On 3rd May, 1965, each of the plaintiffs consigned separately 100 bales of cotton. They arrived, in the one ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Vijayan Vs. the Executive Officer, Avanashi Panchayat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ370
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner is the President of the Avanashi Panchayat which consists of fourteen members. On 31st October, 1974, nine of the members sent a written requisition to the petitioner to convene a meeting of the panchayat on 11th November, 1974 at 10-30 A.M. to consider the following subjects:(a) Sanction of income and expenditure account;(b) To consider and and take steps to increase the revenue of the panchayat; and(c) any other subject which may be brought up by the President or the Executive Officer.This requisition was delivered by the requisitionists to the Executive Officer on 31st October, 1974. The Executive Officer says in his counter-affidavit that he gave it to the President on that very date. The petitioner further states that on 2nd November, 1974 he made an endorsement thereon to the effect that the date and the time for the meeting would be decided and communicated. But this is denied by the Executive Officer, and it is not necessary for me to go i...
Tag this Judgment!The Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Central Intelligence Wing, Board of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC39(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, C.J.1. This petition involves the question as to whether, where documents have been illegally seized and the court has ordered them to be returned, but it has allowed photostat copies of the documents to be retained in court in a sealed cover pending further direction, their user by the department can be permitted. On 11th July, 1972, on the strength of a search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate in R.O.C. No. 4794 of 1972, the residence bearing door No. 24, Nannian Stteet, Park Town, Madras-3, was searched and certain documents were seized. The application made by one Thiru Daniel, Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Central Intelligence Wing, Board of Revenue, Madras, for the issue of warrant stated;I have received information that Thiru Andhra Steel Corporation, No. 304, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-1, has kept his secret account books, etc., in his residence at No. 24, Nannian Street, Park Town, Madras-3, relating to his business and as they are required i...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Dhanalakshmi Mills Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ399
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is to quash the order of the Labour Court passed in I.D. No. 139, of 1971, dated 3oth May, 1972. The short facts are as follows:In G.O. Rt. No. 2o3o, Labour Department dated 1st October, 197 1, the question that was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication was, whether the non-employment of Thiru T. V. Balakirishnan (the first respondent) was justified And if not, to what relief he was entitled. The first respondent was in the employment of the writ petitioner from March, 1959 as a staff member, as an assistant clerk, who was later promoted as a Provident Fund and E.S.A. clerk. He was dismissed from service for certain alleged misconduct from 15th March, 1968 as per Clause 19(5) and (k) of the standing Order of the mills after enquiry. Contending that the dismissal was improper, he raised the dispute and prayed that he might be reinstated with back--wages. In the counter of the management, it was contended that there had been a proper and val...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »