Chennai Court June 1977 Judgments
R.M. Sundaram Vs. the Board of Revenue, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad101
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This is the final stage of a bottle that has been waged before the Collector, before the Board of Revenue and before a single Judge of this court. The question in those appeals is a very simple one and has been posed by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal in one sentence in the penultimate para. We shall extract that sentence: 'But the question as to whether a semi permanent theatre could be constructed with sound proof system in the face of the existing rules has not been gone into by the Board of Revenue before the objections of the school authorities are really overruled.' 2. To understand this question, we shall state the necessary facts. The appellant before us in these two writ appeals applied as envisaged by Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1957, for a no objection certificate under Rule 36 and in form No. B. This application was objected to by the respondent in W. A. 473 of 1976 who runs a convent school in the vicinity of...
Tag this Judgment!Highways Group of Estates Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1977
Reported in: (1978)IILLJ251Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is a private limited company owning three groups of tea estates comprising of Highways, Venniar and Manalaar estates, and respondents 2 to 4 are the three unions functioning in that group of estates. According to the petitioner, on the afternoon of first January, 1971, the pluckers of the Highways Estate refused to fill up leaf bags which is part of their normal duties. When the management made separate arrangements to fill up leaf bags by employing casual labour there was an assault on them. On 2nd January, 1971, the workers throughout the group struck work in support of certain demands. On 4th January, 1971, there was a go-slow by the pluckers in two divisions, Cloudland and Highways. In the Highways division there was a disorderly behaviour by pluckers towards the staff members. This position is said to have continued on the 5th and 6th January, 1971. On 7th January, 1971, the management advised the union leaders that unless normalcy was restore...
Tag this Judgment!Alvel Sales Vs. Dujadwala Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad295; (1978)1MLJ171
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Paul J. in Appln. No. 2703 of 1973 in O. P. 195 of 1971. 2. In connection with certain disputes which arose between the appellant and the respondent, one Mr. V. Venkataraman was appointed as Arbitrator by the appellant in the first instance and as per Clause 21 of the arbitration agreement the respondent was called upon to nominate its arbitrator. On the failure of the respondent to do so, Mr. Venkataraman, in accordance with law, became the sole Arbitrator and he entered upon the reference as per the arbitration agreement in or about Aug. 1970. We are not, in this appeal, quoting the arbitration agreement, or the nature of the dispute between the parties, as it is not necessary.3.. The sole Arbitrator Mr. Venkataraman gave notice of his having assumed office, to both the parties and asked them to attend the enquiry on a date fixed by him in Aug. 1970. The respondent was not prepared to participate in the enquiry and wa...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. the Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC286(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This case has a long history behind it. We are now concerned only with the assessment year 1960-61. The dispute in the present case relates to the assessability of a sum of Rs. 26,38,393.38. For this year, the original assessment order was passed on 30th December, 1963. The assessee did not file any appeal against the assessment. The claim of the assessee, a spinning mill, carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of cotton yarn, subsequently, was that the levy and collection of tax on the value of cotton purchased in the course of inter-State trade was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. According to the assessee, it came to know of the illegality of the claim only after the decision of the Supreme Court in K.G. Khosla and Co. v. Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) [1966] 17 S.T.C. 473 rendered on 18th January, 1966. The judgment in that case was published in the 'Sales Tax Cases' in May, 1966. The assessee filed petitions for rectification under Section...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A. Sadhanandam and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR453(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - These tax revision cases have been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, dated June 28, 1973. The four petitions relate to four partners of two firms, namely, Messrs. Waverly Estates and Caladonia Estates. There are two other partners in the said firm. The income from these firms was being assessed for agricultural income-tax in the hands of the four respondents as individuals. On the April 1, 1970, each one of them made a declaration before an advocate. Taking the case of Vimalan as typical of the four cases, it is stated in the declaration that he was the karta of the Hindu undivided family comprising of his wife, his minor son, his minor daughter and that he was a partner in the aforementioned firms holding one-sixth share. He stated in the declaration :'On April 1, 1970, I had voluntarily relinquished and waived all my individual rights in the abovesaid 1/6th shares held by me in the two firms referred to above in favour of the...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. P. S. Kuppuswamy and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1977
Reported in: [1978]112ITR1012(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - These three references have been made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, referring the following two questions, which are common to all the three references :'1. Whether the Tribunal was right in its construction of section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in holding on the basis of that construction that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in computing the capital gains in this case on this basis of the market value of the shares as on the date of transfer ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in directing the Income-tax Officer to determine the full value of consideration received by the assessee for computation of capital gains under section 52(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. by setting aside the assessment ?'The facts in T.C. No. 278 of 1972, which gave rise to the above questions, are as follows 'The assessee, a Hindu undivided fa...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Indian Metal and Metallurgical Corporation
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC165(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The assessee was carrying on business of manufacturing brass sheets and circles as well as stainless steel and brassware. The assessing officer found in the course of the examination of the accounts for the assessment year 1970-71 that the assessee had supplied fabricated materials worth Rs. 9,683.96 to Messrs. Devi Cine Projector Manufacturing Company, which is a sister concern. The supply of these materials to the sister concerns were not supported by usual sale bills. They were not also recorded as sales. The assessing authority, therefore, considered that these transactions were undisclosed sales and he added a sum of Rs. 19,367.92 being twice the amount of Rs. 9,683.96 on the ground that to the extent of the amount equal to the supplies made to Messrs. Devi Cine Projector Manufacturing Company, there were probable omissions. The assessing authority levied penalty also, for the failure of the assessee to disclose the said transactions in the returns. The penalty so...
Tag this Judgment!A. Loganathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT707(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in tobacco. There was a surprise inspection of his bonded warehouse by the Superintendent of Central Excise on three days, namely, 8-12-1969 to 10-12-1969, and a special stock taking was conducted under Rule 223-A of the Central Excise Rules. The stock taking revealed a shortage of 7477 kilograms of tobacco. In respect of the said shortage, the petitioner was called upon to pay duty, as well as penalty of Rs. 750 for violation of Rule 223-A. As against the said demand, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Collector of Central Excise, but without success. Then there was a revision to the Central Government which was also rejected. The petitioner has, therefore, come to this court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the revisional authority confirming the orders passed by the initial and appellate authorities.2. In this writ petition mainly two contentions have been advanced. One is that Rule 223-A contemplates the passing of an ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Balakrishnan and Brothers P. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: [1978]41STC450(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore, disposed of an appeal on 9th March, 1972, filed by the assessee. The turnover in dispute before the Tribunal came to Rs. 99,904.70 consisting of two items, namely, (1) Rs. 93,639.45 representing canteen sales and Rs. 6,265.25 representing the sale of scraps. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that these two items of turnover are not liable to be taxed in view of a decision of this court reported in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Thirumagal Mills Limited [1967] 20 S.T.C. 287. The Tribunal further proceeded on the basis that this decision had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noticed that, as far as the canteen sales are concerned, it was an amenity provided by the company for its workers and staff as enjoined under Section 46 of the Factories Act. In the view that it took on the basis of the decision of this court which was assumed by it to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal did...
Tag this Judgment!Adhu Vs. V.M. Palaniswamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad144; (1978)1MLJ16
ORDERMohan, J. 1. The revision petitioner, a tenant undaunted by the failures in all the courts below, has come up to this court challenging the validity of an order of eviction passed against him in R. C. O. P. 430 of 1965 which was confirmed by the lower authorities both in appeal and revision. He challenges the order on the ground that what was demised in his favour was a mere extensive vacant site to enable him to run a timber depot. The mere fact that there exists a masonry structure, which the learned-counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Nainar Sundaram) admits, will not clothe the Kent Controller with the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973. According to him, if the dominant intention was to carry on timber depot, the definition 'building' under Section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973 would not take such a lease. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »