Chennai Court January 1978 Judgments
M.S. Narayana Iyer Vs. A.C.A. Funds, Palayamkottai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ392
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner-debtor in I.P. No. 17 of 1972 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli is the petitioner in this revision. The said petition was filed by him under Sections 10 and 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to adjudge him an insolvent on the ground that his debts exceeded his assets and hence he was unable to pay them. He set forth the necessary particulars in support of his case. Some of the creditors, who were arrayed as respondents, contested the said petition by saying that the debtor had enough means to pay off all his debts; and they projected the necessary particulars in support of their contention. The Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli mooted out for contentions the point as to whether the petitioner debtor has prima facie established that he is unable to pay off his debts from the available sources. Evidence, oral and documentary, was adduced both by the petitioner-debtor' and the respondents-cr...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Chetti Vs. Veerajinnu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad85
1. This appeal has been filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 3034 of 1966 in the City Civil Court, Madras. The plaintiffs are the daughters of one Mariammal who is herself a daughter of one Veerammal. Veerammal died leaving certain properties. These properties were inherited by Mariammal as her heir. Mariammal died in 1936 leaving behind her husband Govinda Chetti and her daughters the first two plaintiffs and one Jagannatha Ammal. Jagannatha Ammal died in 1950 leaving behind her husband Subbiah Chetti, the defendant in the suit and a daughter Sargunavalli. Sargunavalli died in or about 1966. The plaintiffs claimed that on the death of Jagannatha Ammal in the year 1950, they had become entitled to the properties left by Mariammal and, therefore, they sought to recover possession from Jagannatha Ammal's husband Subbiah Chetti who was in enjoyment of the said properties. The defendant Subbiah Chetti contended that the properties under consideration were the properties of one Govinda Chett...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Chetty Vs. M.S. Askar Ahmed and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad310; (1978)1MLJ342
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendant in O. S. No. 183 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore is the petitioner. The first respondent filed asuit to recover the amount due on a promissory note dated 12-2-1970 executed by the defendant in favour of the second respondent viz., Abdulla Basha Sahib. The second respondent is said to have assigned the said promissory note in favour of the first respondent on 23rd April 1973. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the promissory note was executed towards the sale consideration of a sale deed dated 11th February 1970 and since he could not get possession and he was injuncted by the Court from taking possession, the consideration on the promissory note must be deemed to have failed and in any event the plaintiff is not a holder in due course. On the basis of the above findings issues were framed and issues 1 to 3 read as follows:--1. Whether the suit pronote was executed for the purchase of the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. V. Kanakammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: [1979]118ITR94(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, in relation to the assessment of a person engaged in the business of operating motor vehicles for profit.2. The questions read as follows :'1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 30,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1963-64? 2. Whether the finding of the Appellate Tribunal that no penalty is exigible is a reasonable view to take on the facts and circumstances of the case ?' 3. It appears that for some years the assessee had been filing returns on the basis of certain estimates, which are called 'cash statements'. It also appears that these returns have not been accepted by the department and assessments were made under Section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. This happened for the year 1963-64 as well, with which we are concerned in the re...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Nanjan Vs. Madras State Electricity Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad89
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petition against an order of the learned Additional district Judge, Coimbatore, dismissing O. P. 61 of 1969 filed under S. 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 13 of 1885, for payment of a sum of Rs. 95171-50 as compensation for the wattle trees and plants cut and removed by the Madras State Electricity Board. The facts of the case are as follows :-An extent of 18.34 acres in S. No. 9/1 of Mulligoor village was acquired for the site of the Emerald Dam and the Kundah project. Though the notification for the acquisition of the site under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was published only on 1-5-1957, the Madras State Electricity Board (to be referred hereinafter as the Board) entered the lands even in 1956 and cut and removed the trees thereon and sold them away in auction. 19002 wattle trees and plants of various girths and sizes appear to have been this cut and sold away by the respondent-Board. Exs. A-1 to A-7 are the receipts and Ex. A-8 is the c...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P. Nammalvar Naidu and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1978
Reported in: [1979]116ITR863(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. Two questions have been referred to this court for our opinion relating to the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, pertaining to the same assessee. The questions read as follows :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the quantum of the penalty leviable for each of the assessment years 1958-59, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, had to be computed on the basis set out in Clause (e) of the letter of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 3rd March, 1969, addressed to the Income-tax Officer ?2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the negative, whether the Tribunal was in error in reducing the penalties as imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for each of the assessment years involved ?'2. The relevant facts that have to be stated for the purpose of answering these questions can be summarised thus. The assessee made a proposal to the CIT on May 11, 196...
Tag this Judgment!S. Duraiswami Nadar Vs. Additional Special Deputy Collector (Land Acqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad313
Mohan, J.1. The following lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:--R. S. 1228/77 .. 20 acresR. S. 1231/4 .. 7 acresR. S. 1229/4 .. 17.5 acres These lands belonged to Tiruchendur Subramaniaswami Koil. Sukharavara Kattalai Trust, represented by Managing Trustee (Doraisami Nadar) the petitioner herein. The acquisition was for railways. An award was passed on 26-4-1976 and the compensation fixed in the award was Rs. 13664-80. The Additional Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Railways) Nagarcoil passed an order to the effect that since there was a dispute relating to the ownership of the property, the matter should be referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act. It isthis award which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition by way of certiorari.2. Mr. S. Challaswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits as under:-- Section 30 of the Act contemplates a reference to a...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India Vs. Official Liquidator, Straps (India) Private Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1978
Reported in: [1979]49CompCas514(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of Ramaprasada Rao. J., dated 23rd June, 1977, made in Company Application No. 551 of 1976. The applicant in the company application is the appellant, which is the State Bank of India, Madras-1. The said bank instituted a suit, O.S. No. 117 of 1974, on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingle-put, which has been transferred to and numbered as C.S. No. 233 of 1974, on the original side of this court. The suit was originally instituted against 10 defendants, the first defendant being one Messrs. Chandra Paper Band, defendants 2 to 9, being the partners of the said first defendant firm and the 10th defendant, being the official liquidator. High Court, Madras. The suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,99,170.04 with further interest at 10 1/2% per annum on Rs. 1,25,700.28 at half yearly rests and at 9 1/4% per annum on Rs. 38,797'85 at monthly rests, from the defendants and in default for a direction for the sale of the...
Tag this Judgment!United Footwear (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1978
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT626(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. The petitioner imported a Desma 715-718 fully automatic high pressure plastic foot wear injection moulding machine with accessories and spares under cover of Madras Customs Bill of entry No. 491 dated 7.11.1970 from Messrs Desma Werke GMBH Achin Bei Brenen, Germany, at a cost of about Rs. 5 lakhs. The object of the import was for the manufacture of boots and shoes. The said machine was assessed to customs duty at 35% ad valorem under sub-item No. (b) of Item 72 of the Indian Customs Tariff. As the machine was imported through the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., the duty was paid through them and the petitioner took delivery of the machine on hire purchase basis.2. The petitioner states that the levy of duty at 35% under Item 72(b) of I.C.T. is illegal. According to him it should have been assessed for duty at 10% under entry No 72(15) Indian Customs Tariff read with Government of India Notification No. 117-Cus. dated 20th August, 1955. Under those Circumstances,...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Mohammad Yousuff Sahib and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC335(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. What is in dispute in this tax revision case is a turnover of Rs. 37,669.18 representing the sales effected by the respondent herein in favour of one V. Srinivas and Company, Madras. The contract that was entered into between the parties as extracted by the Tribunal in its order is as follows :We have pleasure in accepting your offer to deliver the following goods in Far Eastern Ports at your account and risk.No. of bales/ Description Agg. wt. and Assort- Price perpieces range ment lb.2 (two) Superfine tanned 11/12 Rmsheep skins. 25/35/40 @ Sh. 19/6Pure red hairs. Export duty:Single tonnage. Your a/c.Guaranteed freefrom adulteration.Terms: The above price/prices is/are CIF/Far Eastern Ports less 3 1/2 per centdiscount.Brokerage: 1 1/2 per cent N. P. per lb.Shipment: Within 2 months.Property in the goods passes after shipment: Payment: Against presentation of documents after shipment 90 days D/P. on continent.Note: Shipment if effected by us shall be at your expense but it ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »