Chennai Court August 1976 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kamarajan Textiles, Through Its Proprietor M. Meenakshisundaram Vs. Em ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ296
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Employees State Insurance Court rejecting an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter called the Act) for a declaration that its factory was not covered by the provisions of the said Act at any point of time and, therefore, it is not liable to pay any contribution at all. The appellant owns a handloom weaving and dyeing factory known as Kamarajan Textiles producing handloom cloth. In the premises where the handloom cloth is manufactured there are various sections, such as reeling, winding, dyeing and weaving sections. In the reeling and winding sections, power has admittedly been used; but in the dyeing and weaving sections power had not been used. In the reeling and winding sections, where power was used the number of persons employed were less than 20. But in the weaving and dyeing sections, where power is not used, more than 20 persons had been...
Madras Kirana Merchants Association Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1976
Reported in: [1978]111ITR156(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the income of the applicant is not exempt under section 11 or the Income-tax Act ?' In view of the course which we propose to adopt, it is not necessary to refer in great detail to the provisions contained in the memorandum of association of the assessee. It is enough to mention that the assessee is M/s. Madras Kirana Merchants Association, and it was incorporated in 1940 under section 25 of the Companies Act, with the liberty to omit the word 'Limited'. For the assessment year 1965-66 and 1966-67, the assessee filed returns showing incomes of Rs. 1,598 and Rs. 2,040 respectively from a property. Interest incomes of Rs. 667 and Rs. 686 were also shown for the two years respectively. The total receipts thus amounte...
C.G. Ghanshamdas Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: [1979]116ITR212(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, only one-half of the capital gain of Rs. 79,119 is liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee ?'2. The facts which had given rise to the above question of law lie within a very narrow compass. The assessment relates to the year 1961-62. One property known as 'Khushaldas Gardens' was owned by seven individuals. One of them, namely, Shri Haridas Ghirdhardas, filed C. S. No. 391 of 1950, on the file of this court, against the other co-owners for division by metes and bounds of all the properties belonging to them inclusive of the aforesaid Khushaldas Gardens. During the pendency of the suit, one of the co-owners, namely, Shri Baldevdas Govindas, died survived by his minor son, Vallabhadas and his widow, Mrs. Kamala Bai, who were brought on r...
The State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. Kandasamy Pilial and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1690
Kailasam, C.J.1. All these writ appeals raise the same questions of law and are dealt with together. The main arguments were addressed in Writ Appeal No. 163 of 1975. These writ appeals can be disposed of together by a common order except in Writ Appeal No, 202 of 1975, where, on the facts it is submitted that no case has been made out against the first respondent.2. The respondent in Writ Appeal No. 163 of 1975 is a partnership firm M/s. Kandasamy Pilial, a licensed wholesale dealer in paddy and rice in Attur. Salem District. The firm also owned a rice mill in Attur. The respondent filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second appellant herein, the District Supply Officer, Salem, to return the entire stock of paddy seized from the Respondent's premises on 20-7-1974 without any further proceedings as per the order in R. O. C. No.134944/J 10 dated 22-7-1974. The impugned order purported to withdraw all the facilities that were given to the respondent f...
Pauline Luca Vs. Jerome Pascal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad270
1. The short question in this appeal is whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which was extended to the State of Pondicherry has to prevail in the matter of succession to the estate of a Christian which is claimed by the heirs who are still Christians.2. The plaintiff is the son of Pascal Theodore and the defendant is one of his daughters. The plaintiff filed the present suit for a declaration that he is entitled to succeed as the sole heir of Pascal Theodore to the exclusion of his sister and prayed for the necessary reliefs. The defendant, however, on the prima facie assumption that after the induction of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 into the State of Pondicherry, she would also be entitled as one of the class I heirs, resisted the claim. The following issues were framed:1. What is the successoral law applicable to the parties?2. Whether according to that law the plaintiff is the sole heir of his deceased father Theodore Pascal; and3. What relief the parties are entitled to? The l...
Aishabi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: [1980]126ITR293(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, referring the following questions for the opinion of this court:'1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the reopening of the assessment is justified under Section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 is not a windfall which is not liable to tax ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the route value, if any, is not goodwill and therefore liable to tax ? 4. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing a deduction of only Rs. 90,000 instead of Rs. 1,20,000 claimed by the assessee? ' 2. Out of the four questions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the assessee did not press for an answer to questions Nos. 2 to 4...
S. Meenakshi and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC201(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This batch of tax revision cases under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, arises out of a common order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Madurai, dated 6th October, 1971. The petitioners in all these cases were paying tax in terms of Section 7 of the Act. After their assessments were completed with reference to that section and the taxes payable by them were determined, it came to notice that certain transactions which the respective petitioners had, had not been brought to account and, therefore, had escaped assessment to tax. Consequently, the assessments were reopened under Section 16 of the Act and the turnover redetermined and on the basis of the turnover so determined in each case the tax was demanded from the petitioners. Simultaneously, penalty was levied under Section 16(2) of the Act. The appeals preferred by the petitioners to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Commerci...
Parry and Co. Ltd. Vs. R.J. Stephen and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)IILLJ186Mad
Koshal, J.1. The petitioner in this case is Parry and Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the company) whom respondent No. 1 joined as an assistant in the year 1965 at Madras. He was transferred from Madras in March. 1966 and thereafter served the company at various places, the last of them being Tiruchirapalli where he was stationed when his services were terminated on the 13th December, 1970 by an order issued by the company from Madras. He went op in appeal to the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras (hereinafter called the commissioner), under Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The appeal was resisted by the company on the ground inter alia that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between the company and respondent No. 1 inasmuch as the Tiruchirapalli establishment to which he was attached did not fall within the territory administered by the Commissione...
N.A. Chidambaram Chettiar Firm Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad160
Kailasam, C.J.1. This petition is filed under Arts. 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India for the grant of a certificate by this Court that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution as provided under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution of India and that it fulfils the requirements of Art. 133 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition for the issue of a Writ of Declaration that the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (President's Act for Tamil Nadu 31 of 1976) was unconstitutional, illegal and void, and for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein to forbear from enforcing or attempting to enforce the provisions of that Act and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Rules 1976. By a judgment delivered by us on 19th August, 1976, in W. P. No. 2997 of 1976 etc. (batch) we held that there was no substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and that the impugned legislation ...
N.A. Chidambaram Chettiar Firm by Its Partner, N.A. Chidambaram. Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ443
ORDERKailasam, C.J.1. This petition is filed under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India for the grant of a certificate by this Court that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution as provided under Article 132 (i) of the Constitution of India and that it fulfils the requirements of Article 133 of the Constitution.2. The petitioner filed a writ petition for the issue of a Writ of Declaration that the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (President's Act for Tamil Nadu, 31 of 1976) was unconstitutional, illegal and void, and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents therein to forbear from enforcing or attempting to enforce the provisions of that Act and the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Rules 1976. By a Judgment delivered by us on 19th August, 1976. in W.P. No. 2997 of 1976, etc. (batch) we held that there was no substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and that the impug...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »