Chennai Court April 1978 Judgments
Periasami thevar Vs. Namasivayam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ467
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner herein is a cultivating tenant under the Tamil Nadu Act XXI of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ('the Act)'. The respondent herein is the landlord The cultivating tenant sought reliefs under the Act by filing a petition E.A. No. 380 of 1973 in O.S. No. 836 of 1971. on the file of the District Munsif of Sirkali. The said petition has been dismissed by the Court below and this revision is directed against the orders of the Court below.2. In this case there is no dispute about the relationship between the parties. The current rent was paid by four money orders as follows. Money order relating to Exhibit A-2 was received by the landlord on 24th August, 1972 : money order relating to Exhibit A-5 was received on 24th August, 1972 : the money order relating to Exhibit A-4 was received on 8th February, 1973, and lastly the money order relating to Exhibit A3 was received on 12th February, 1973. There is no disDute that this last money order was sent ...
Tag this Judgment!India Motor Parts and Accessories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: [1981]130ITR311(Mad)
Rathnavel Pandian, J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, has referred the following questions relating to the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, for the opinion of this court:Assessment year 1963-64 ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held in law that the sums of Rs. 6,25,000, being provision for taxation, Rs. 4,05,000, being proposed dividends, and Rs. 4,664, being the surplus in the profit and loss appropriation account, could not be considered as 'reserve' and, therefore, not includible in the computation of thecapital of the company for the assessment year 1963-64, under the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 ?' Assessment year 1964-65:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held in law that the sum of Rs. 2,65,000, being proposed dividends, could not be considered as ' reserve ' and, therefore, not includible in the computation of the capital of the c...
Tag this Judgment!C. Chennaiya Naidu Vs. Panchayat Board, Venukadathampatti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Mad135
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal raises a point of distinction between O. 17, R. 2 and O. 17, R. 3 C.P.C. This distinction had become a matter of importance to the parties in this case in the way their suit was disposed of by the trial Court, when it was called for final hearing. What happened on that day had better be described in the words of the learned District Munsif himself."The suit is in list. Petition filed for adjournment by the plaintiff on the ground that the important witness had not come, rejected. Plaintiff present. Suit dismissed for non-prosecution with costs of defendants."Against the dismissal of the suit, in the manner aforesaid, the plaintiff filed a regular appeal to the District Court, before the learned District Judge, the defendant raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal. He contended that when the trial Court dismissed the suit, it did so in exercise of its powers under O. 17, R. 2 of the C. P. Code, in which event, no appeal lay ...
Tag this Judgment!Md. HussaIn Sait Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: [1979]117ITR654(Mad)
Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. Under Section 64 of the E.D. Act, 1953, the following question has been referred to us for our opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 4,55,000 to the estate of the deceased was valid on the ground that Section 5 read with section 12(1) together with the Explanation would apply to the instant case ?2. By a document dated November 1, 1934, one (late) Mohamed Ismail created a wakf in favour of himself, his family and his descendants and ultimately for the benefit of the poor, of the properties belonging to him. This wakf was of a permanent character, He dedicated the immovable properties described in the schedule thereunder for his benefit and for the benefit of his family, children and descendants and ultimately for the benefit of the poor Muslims in accordance with the conditions and rules stipulated in the wakf deed. He also appointed his father, Mohamed Musa Sait, as the...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. Ganesh Lal Bajaj and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR791(Mad)
SURYANMURTHY J. - This is a civil revise petition against a judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Vellore, dismissing E.A. No. 210 of 1975 in E.P. No. 96 of 1974 in O.S. No. 3288 of 1969 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras.The application before the learned subordinate judge was filed by the Union of India, Income-tax Department, represented by its TRO VI, Madras, for a declaration that the attachment of the properties of the judgment-debtor by M/s. Ganesh Bajaj, the first respondent, is void and for raising the attachment. The officer also prayed for stay of the execution procceedings.'When a certificate has been received by the Tax Recovery Officer from the Income-tax Officer for the recovery of arrears under this SChedule, the Tax Recovery Officer shall cause to be served upon the defaulter a notice requiring the defaulter to pay the amount specified in the certificate within fifteen days from the date of service of the notice and inimating that in default ...
Tag this Judgment!Combined Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1978
Reported in: [1978]115ITR358(Mad)
The following two questions have been referred under s. 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the entire lands sold by the applicant did not constitute agricultural lands ?2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether, on the facts and in the circunstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the AAC should ascertain what portion of the lands in question had actually been utilised for agriculture during the three years, i.e., the previous years relevant to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 and on which expenditure had been incurred for levelling, etc., in these years and only the profit referable to such portion of the land should be excluded from the amount of capital gains by the ITO ?'The assessee is a private limited company. It purchased in different lots agricultural lands of a total extent of 63.63 acres ...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS17D; 1978(2)ELT511(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein is a manufacturer of cotton terene blend and synthetic fibre yarn. In the case of waste cotton yarn arising out of the manufacture of cotton yarn, an exemption has been granted for excise duty. On the basis of such exemption, representations were made that the waste yarn arising out of the spinning of staple fibre yarns should also be allowed exemption from duty as in the case of cotton yarn. This was acceded to by the Government of India by issuing a Notification No. 59/1965-Central Excise, dated 1.4.1965, exempting waste staple fibre yarn known as hard waste, falling under Tariff item No. 18, from the whole of the duty leviable thereon with effect from 1.4.1965. This exemption notification was issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. By Section. 64(c) of the Finance Act 1972, the Central Excise item No. 18 was amended and a new Tariff item No. 18-E was introduced. Varieties of ...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Tools and Gauges Ltd., Through Its Director, N. Alagappan Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS158D; 1979(4)ELT255(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner imported a consignment of 24 numbers of projection lamps as spares for use in projection form grinding machine. In respect of that consignment, he claimed that the lower rate of duty under item 72(3) of the Customs Tariff is leviable as those bulbs are essential part of 'Petewe' projection form grinding machine model P-7-S-3D. However, the goods were treated by the first respondent as electric lighting bulbs and classified under item 60(2) of Indian Customs Tariff. The goods were cleared under protest after paying the duty demanded by the first respondent.2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for refund of the difference in duty between the one paid under item 60(2) and the one payable under item 72(3) on the ground that the projection lamps imported by him will squarely fall under item 72(3) and not under item 60(2). This claim for refund was rejected by the first respondent on 17-11-1972, stating that the assessment originally made classifyin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›