Chennai Court February 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.
T.N. Lakshmanan Vs. S.P. Hajee Alavudeen Saheb Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ9
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in C.M.A. No. 2 of 1975. The present petitioner, who is the landlord, filed an application for evicting the respondent who is a tenant of the premises bearing Door No. 19, Old Door No. 41 in Salia Venkatakrishna Chetty Street, Shevapet, Salem Town belonging to the petitioner. The reason for which eviction was prayed for is, that he required the premises for his own occupation. The petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined a witness, P.W. 2. The learned Rent Controller, on an appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner bona fide required the premises for his own residential purposes. But the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that there was no valid notice to quit under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. As against the decision of the Rent Controller the petitioner landlord filed C.M.A. N...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Krishna and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR144(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In pursuance of the directions of this court under Section 256(2), the following questions have been referred :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 5,800 levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax, Act, 1961 and 2. Whether the conclusion of the Appellate Tribunal is a reasonable view to take on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ?' 2. In the accounts of the assessee in the previous assessment year 1965-66 there were certain amounts shown as borrowed from four parties :Rs. Seth Pahlarai Govindarai, Madras15,000Seth Kanyalal Pahlarai, Madras10.000Seth Hargovindsing Nihalsing, Madras10,000Seth Dwarkadas Lakshmichand, Madras10,000 45,0003. A scrutiny of the entries regarding the borrowings and repayments showed certain discrepancies. Though the addresses of all those bankers were shown to be in Madras, the credits as well as the debits appeared in the book...
S. Sundararajan Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ36
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Tirunelveli excusing the delay in filing a review application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in C.M.A. (L.T.) No. 13 of 1972.2. The respondent is the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Tirunelveli against whose order an appeal had been filed to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal disposed of the said appeal on 30th October, 1974. A review application was filed by the Authorised Officer on 27th October, 1975, after considerable delay. Along with the review application, an application for excusing the delay in filing the review application (I.A. No. 16 of 1976) had also been filed stating that the order of the Tribunal had to be examined at various levels and the higher authorities had to be consulted for filing a review application and that examination and consultation resulted in the said delay and that as such the delay was not wilful.3. The application for condonation of the delay was opposed ...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. S. Kuppuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: (1979)13CTR(Mad)319; [1981]131ITR709(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is reference under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act. The following two questions have been referred to us : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 47,739 representing the value of 22% of interest surrendered by the deceased in the firm of M/s. T. Purushotham & Co., Madras, in favour of his sons is not includible in terms of Section 9 of the Estate Duty Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that out of the value of the chitfund contributions made by the deceased a sum of Rs. 10,122 is not includible in terms of Section 10 of the Estate Duty Act ?' 2. As the two questions refer to two distinct matters, we shall deal with each one of them separately. The estate duty assessment came to be made on the death of one K. Subramania Iyer, on 17th November, 1969. He was a partner in the firm of T. Purushotham ...
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited Vs. the Assistant Collector, Centr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: 1979CENCUS280D; 1979(4)ELT238(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is for prohibition to prohibit the respondent from proceeding with the impugned show cause notice, dated 12-7-1976. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. U.N.R. Rao, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel stating that the petitioner has come at the threshold of the matter only against the mere show cause notice. Whatever objections he has, he can well maintain them before the authorities, more so when a heirarchy has been constituted. The effective argument of Mr. Dolia which merits acceptance in my view is when there is total lack of jurisdiction there is no reason why the petitioner should be called upon to answer a show cause notice, which on the face of it shows lack of jurisdiction. What he means by this argument is, originally levy was sought to be made under Rule 10A. But that levy was set aside by the Collector on appeal. However, strangely he directed proceedings to be taken under Rule 9(2) to collect the differential levy, Rul...
Durga Shankar Industries Vs. Government of India and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: 1979CENCUS213D; 1979(4)ELT227(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant herein, a proprietory concern, is carrying on business as manufacturers of hospital equipments etc. It obtained a licence for the import of stainless steel sheets in coils as an actual user. The appellant on the basis of the said licence imported certain consignments of stainless steel between September 1969 and October 1971. On the said consignments, import duty was levied under Item 87 of the Tariff at 100 per cent ad-valorem. After payment of the said duty and after clearing the consignment, the appellant came to know that the consignment of stainless steel imported by it is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 118-Customs, dated 20-8-1965, as amended by Notification No. 138-Customs, dated 25-8-1965, which reduces the import duty to 10 per cent ad valorem in cases of import of stainless steel strips of 250 millimetres of width or more. On the ground that the stainless steel imported by the petitioner was stainless steel strips of 1,000 millimetre...
Arimuthu and ors. Vs. Latchoumanpoulle
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ101
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of Maharajan, J., in Special Appeal No. 279 of 1969 (Civil) agreeing with the Court of First Instance, Karikal, and dismissing the appeal before him. The appellants before him were, the defendants in the action. One Arunachala had six sons, one of whom was Subramania, who died and who was not a party to this action. His son, is the plaintiff in the action. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of the fourth defendant, and defendants 4 to 8 are the sons of Arunachala. By a gift deed, dated 27th April, 1936, Arunachala bequeathed the usufruct over the suit property to Subramania and gave the remainder to any son born to Subramania thereafter to be enjoyed by him absolute. It appears that Subramania was adopted to a different family. For reasons not very clear, Arunachala filed a suit and sought for the cancellation of the gift deed as above and impleaded therein Subramania as a party defendant. Subramania remain...
R. Kantnimathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ316
ORDERV. Ramaswani, J.1. The petitioner was directly recruited to the Administrative section of the then Women's Branch of the Madras Educational Service and posted as Superintendent on the 13th March, 1950. On completion of probation she was confirmed as Permanent Inspectress of Schools, Madurai, with effect from the date of her appointment. Subsequently there was an amalgamation of the Men's Branch of the Madras Educational Service with the Women's Branch and the Madias Educational Service was reconstituted in 1955 In 1962 some officers who were juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the cadre of Deputy Director of Education and Divisional Inspector of Schools. She was protesting against this overlooking of her seniority. Subsequently on 25th July, 1966 she was promoted to the combined cadre of Deputy Director and Divisional Inspector of Schools. The next promotional post was that of Joint Director of Public Instruction. Her claim for promotion to this post was not considered and ...
E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Government of India Represented by Joint ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1979
Reported in: 1979CENCUS370D; 1979(4)ELT253(Mad)
Mohan, J.The short facts leading to this writ petition are as follows : --1. The petitioners who are manufacturers of fertilisers are liable to Central Excise duty under Item No. 14 HH of the Ist Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. In the manufacture of fertilisers the petitioners are using Rock Phosphate which is imported into India. At the time of import, contervailing duty is levied on Rock Phosphates and the petitioners are availing the duty paid on imported rock phosphate, as per the procedure laid down under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules. In September 1971, the petitioners imported a quantity of 745....490 M.T. of Rock Phosphate under Bill of 'Entry No. D.723 dated 10-9-1971 and a quantity of 560...298 M.T. was utilised in the manufacture of fertilisers and the same was cleared between 4-10-1971 and 14-10-1971. As per the provisions contained in Rule 56A(3)(vi) as it stood prior to the Notification No. 163/73 dated 25-8-1973, the duty payable on the said qua...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. M. Seshasayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1979
Reported in: (1979)12CTR(Mad)360; [1981]129ITR166(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The following question of law has been referred by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961: ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to relief under Section 80T on the gross amount of capital gains and not on the net amount after set off of carried forward capital loss of earlier years?' 2. The assessee, who is an individual, was assessed for the assessment year 1973-74. She had a sum of Rs. 38,780 as long-term capital gains. In computing the relief due to the assessee under the provisions of Section 80T, the assessee took capital gains at Rs. 38,780 and after deduction of the exemption of Rs. 5,000, under Section 80T, there was a balance of Rs. 33,780, and, according to the assessee, the fifty per cent. rebate that is provided under Section 80T should be on this sum of Rs. 33,780. The ITO did not agree with this submission. He accepted the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »