Chennai Court January 1979 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.
M.S.N. Pandia Nadar Vs. the Collector of Madurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1979
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ396
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This appeal is against the order of Ramanujam, J., in Writ Petition No. 13 of 1979 wherein the appellant-petitioner sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a notice dated 7th October, 1978 issued by the first respondent stating that the Government accepted the recommendation of the Additional Collector, Madurai and endorsed by the Board of Revenue that the land now under cultivation and in the possession of the appellant pursuant to an earlier G.O., R.O.C. No. 10415.1/G/75.J9, dated 4th June, 1975 as lessee thereof, for the purpose of cardamom cultivation, be transferred to the forest department in order to preserve the shola land and hill area atmosphere. This notice was challenged by the appellant on three grounds, firstly that the 'Original lease covered by G.O.R.O.C. No. 104151/G/75.J9, dated 4th June, 1975, enabled him to remain in possession as lessee for the purpose of raising cardamom for a period of ten years and that he having not comm...
M. Ranganatha Sastri Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR488(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1 . T.C. No. 68/1975 is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, raising the following questions :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, R.S. No. 154/10 which belonged to the assessee and which was acquired by the Government of Madras was agricultural land and hence not a capital asset within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) If the first question is answered in the negative, whether the provisions of Section 52(2) can be invoked in computing the capital gains arising to the assessee by compulsory acquisition of that capital asset and (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the full value of the consideration for the transfer should be computed taking into consideration the compensation awarded by the city civil court ?' 2. In T.C. No. 70 of 1975, which has been referred under Section 27(1) of the W.T. Act...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Crompton Engineering Company ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1979
Reported in: [1979]119ITR921(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal has referred the following question :' Whether the assessee should be granted relief under Section 85C of the Income-tax Act of 1961 on the gross amount received by it from the Libyan company without deducting the expenses incurred for earning the same ?'2. The assessee, a public limited company, entered into an agreement with a Libyan company for the supply of technical services. It received from the Libyan company a sum of Rs. 4,63,663 as remuneration for services rendered during 1966, the previous year for 1967-68. The assessee's employees at Libya had been paid remuneration at the work-spot by the Libyan company. The balance of the service fees was remitted to India, the actual amount remitted being Rs. 2,46,315. It is stated that the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 3,03,113 as and by way of salaries and sundry expenses, which related to the amount received from the Libyan company. It is poss...
The Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Supply and Marketing Soci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC21(Mad)
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. In these two cases, the question involved is whether a registered dealer is liable to be penalised for having caused a violation which is characterised as a technical violation of Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act provides that if any person, being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration, then he is liable to be penalised. What happened in these cases was that the goods which were not covered by the registration certificate were purchased by the petitioners. They would admit that they had issued C forms for the purchase of the goods not mentioned in their registration certificate. But they would claim relief on the ground that they were under the bona fide impression that they were entitled to buy the goods in question by the issue of C forms in view of the very registration certificate itself. In that...
Yousuff Radio Vs. the Board of Revenue, Commercial Taxes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1979
Reported in: [1979]43STC525(Mad)
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. For the assessment years J968-69 and 1969-70, the appellant did not include in the assessable turnovers a sum of Rs. 73,000 for the former year and Rs. 72,000 for the latter year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner would agree with the appellant that it would not be escaped turnover because the discovery itself was made on account of certain disclosures voluntarily made, on an affidavit sworn to by the appellant before the income-tax department and that as he retracted therefrom at a later stage, the burden of proof was on the shoulders of the sales tax department to establish that there was an escapement as such. He, therefore, gave the benefit to the assessee and excluded the above amounts from the assessable turnover. The Board of revenue suo motu revised the proceedings and set aside the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.2. The relevant facts which would appear from the records are that during the pendency of the income-tax proceedings, the...
G.K. Jose and ors. Vs. Ramathal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1979
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ372
G. Ramanujam, J.1. All these four revision petitions arise out of a common judgment rendered by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 dismissing the appeals filed by the four petitioners against the orders of eviction passed against at them by the Rent Controller. All the four petitioners herein are tenants in the various portions of the same building bearing different door numbers (Door Nos. 22/315, 313, 314 and 315). As regards all the petitioners except the petitioner in C.R.P. 136/ 79 the two grounds urged for the purpose of eviction are (1) wilful default in payment of rent; and (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction As regards the petitioner in C.R.P No. 136/79 an additional ground of eviction has been urged by the respondent-landlady. The Rent Controller by a common judgment in all the four petitions filed against the petitioners herein held that the ground of wilful default in...
P. Periasami and ors. Vs. P. Periathambi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad33
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. As against a common judgment rendered by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in 0. S. No. 124 of 194 and 0. S. No. 161 of 1965, the above appeals arise. The plaintiffs in 0. S. 124 of 1964 are the appellants in A. S. 141 of 1972 and the same three plaintiffs as above, who are defendants 4 to 6 in 0. S. 161 of 1965 are the appellants in A.S. 142 of 1972. Both the suits are laid as suits for partition. We shall consider the relative claims of parties in the course of our judgment. In the court below evidence was recorded in 0. S. 124 of 1964. The first plaintiff in 0.S 124 of 1964 who is the 4th defendant in O.S. No. 161 of 1965, examined himself as P.W. 1. The first defendant in O.S. 124 of 1964, who is also the first defendant in O.S. No. 161 of 1965, examined himself as D.W. 1 and the plaintiff, 8th defendant, 13th defendant, 17th defendant and 18th defendant in O.S. 161of 1965 have examined themselves as DWs. .2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. We shall maintai...
Waterfall Estates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (No. 1)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: (1980)16CTR(Mad)279; [1981]131ITR207(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this court;'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal that the entire managing agency commission claimed and shown in the accounts was not allowable as a deduction for the assessment year 1965-66 as per the ratio of the decision in : [1971]82ITR452(SC) , is valid in law ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that for the assessment year 1965-66, the various lines of activity like tea estate, coffee estate, coffee curing, plantation, etc., did not constitute one single and integrated activity or business but independent units of business is a correct-inference on the facts found and valid in law ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in its conclusion...
P.V. Subbu Chetty and Sons Vs. Madras Stainless Emporium (Regd.) and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ504
T. Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. On three grounds the petitioner filed a rent control petition for evicting the respondent from premises No. 91/1, Venkatachala Mudali Street, Mylapore, Madras-4. The undisputed facts in this case are that originally a partnership consisting of mother and her three sons were carrying on business. in the premises in question under the name and style of Messrs. Stainless Steel Emporium. The petitioner later found the sign board of M/s. Ameena Metal Stores in the said premises and, therefore, he was of the view that the original emporium vacated the premises or it has sub-let the same to Ameena Stores. With that impression gained by him, on the facts discovered at site and also on the ground that the tenant, meaning thereby the Emporium, did not send rents from June to September, 1972, the present application for eviction was filed.2. The first respondent's case was that the partnership was dissolved in 1970, that one of the partners of the quondam partnership co...
Mrs. J. Kasthuri and ors. Vs. Seth Ghanshamdas Vonsimal Deva Bank
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ11
ORDERM. M. Ismail, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 25th September, 1976 directing the petitioner herein who were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4390 of 1973 to pay court-fees under Section 40 or the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners herein who were the plaintiffs in the suit stated that one Ghanshamdas Chaturbuj introduced one B. E. Loungani of the first defendant firm to them, that the said Loungani became an intimate friend of the second plaintiff (second petitioner herein), that the said Loungani represented that he would require hundies for the purpose of accommodation to enable him. to discount with third parties and raise monies thereon for the purpose of his business, that the said Loungani also assured the plaintiffs that he would himself make the necessary arrangements for the honouring of the hundies on the due dates and that no liability would be faste...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »