Chennai Court July 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.
Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnertra Sangam, by Its Secretary K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: (1979)2MLJ409
Ramaprasada Rao, C.J.1. The appellant filed a writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent in G. O. Rt. No. 708. Labour and Employment dated 5th April, 1975. The circumstances which led to the filing of the writ petition may be briefly stated. Certain disputes arose as between the second respondent--management and its workers A domestic adjustment was made as between the management and the workmen in and by which they agreed that they should enquire into the alleged misconduct of 19 workmen and submit their decision to the Minister for Labour of the State Government for his final decision and action. This was by mutual agreement entered into between the second respondent the workers before the Minister for Labour on 1st July, 1971. Pursuant to such accord disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the second respondent against the said workmen who dismissed the entire lot of them, but as provided under the agreement referred to above, the su...
Sri Balaji Enterprise (Firm) Represented by Its Managing Partner, A.M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ362
ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent, the Deputy Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, calling upon the petitioner to make contributions to the Employees' Provident Fund. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is represented by its managing partner. The partnership under the name of Sri Balaji Enterprise was formed on 20th October, 1974, the partners being O. Narmada and the Managing partner A.M.V. Jayaraman. The partnership was formed for the purpose of acting as dealers of Messrs Burmah Shell. The petitioner applied to the Burmah Shell, Cochin Divisional Office for being appointed as their dealers. Accordingly, Messrs. Burmah Shell appointed the petitioner as a Motor Spirit High Speed Diesel dealer in respect of their filling station at Bhavani with effect from 1st November, 1974. Previously the dealership licence had been given by Burmah Shell to one V.S. Murugesa Mudal...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South Madras Industrial Development Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1979
Reported in: [1979]120ITR913(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In T.C. No. 432 of 1975, the following is the question that has been referred to this court under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reducing the quantum of penalty levied under Section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 '2. In T.C, No. 433 of 1975, the following question has been referred : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that to the extent of Rs. 76,429 the managing agency commission accrued to the assessee only after March 31, 1970, and hence was not assessable in the assessment year 1970-71 ?'3. The assessee is a private limited Company. Whether the amount of Rs. 76,429 is assessable in 1970-71 or 1971-72, is not likely to be of any consequence, because ordinarily the tax rates leviable on companies are more or less uniform, whatever be the total income of the company. However, in the present case, the q...
Management of Pudukottah Textile Limited Vs. A. Ganapathi, Etc., Etc.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1979
Reported in: (1979)IILLJ343Mad
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. These 60 writ petitions have been filed against a common order dated 23.6.1975 made by the first respondent Labour Court, Madurai in C.P. Nos. 253 of 1974, etc., The petitioner is the management of Pudukottah Textiles Ltd., Namanasamudram, Pudukottah District. 61 claim petitions were filed before the first respondent under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act., (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), claiming payment of wages for the period 1.4.1970 to 12.11.1971, nearly seventeen months, during which period the Mill was kept closed. In the affidavit filed in support of these petitions, it is claimed by the workmen that till 1970, the mill was under the management of one L. Narayanan Chettiar, who was designated as Director, and who had taken over the management in or about 1959. Due to continued financial difficulties, the management which was in charge of its affairs in 1970, issued notice dated 28.3.70 under Ext. M10, informing its workers that the ...
Sowdambigai Motor Service Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1979
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ82
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Central Act IV of 1939, was enacted by the Central Legislature and it came into force on 16th February, 1939. The said Act was obviously covered by Entry 20 in List III, Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, namely 'Mechanically propelled vehicles'. Chapter IV of this Act made elaborate provisions for control of transport vehicles. It is pursuant to the provisions contained in the said Chapter, permits are being granted for the purpose of running different types of motor vehicles on public roads. The system of granting of permits for the purpose of running buses on the road came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in C.S.S. Motor Service and Ors. v. State of Madras and Anr. : AIR1953Mad279 . In that case, this Court has held that the right of a citizen to carry on business in motor transport on public streets is within the protection of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and as it is a right guara...
Vincent Vs. T. Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1979
Reported in: AIR1980Mad100
ORDER1. The petitioner is the land lord. He filed an application under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, to evict the respondent tenant, on the ground that the petitioner required the premises for his own occupation and that such requirement was bona fide. Incidentally the question was raised in the course of the trial whether the petitioner had the status of a land lord and whether there was a valid termination of tenancy. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found that the petitioner was a landlord within the meaning of the Act and that there had been a valid notice of determination of tenancy. But on the question whether the requirement by the petitioner of the premises for his own occupation was bona fide or not, the Rent Controller held in favour of the land lord-petitioner, but the Appellate Authority held against him. The only ground on which the Appellate Authority held against the landlord-petitioner was th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. City Palayacot Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1979
Reported in: (1980)15CTR(Mad)365; [1980]122ITR430(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following three questions have been referred for the opinion of this court:'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the Additional Commissioner's order under Section 263 directing the Income-tax Officer to charge interest under Section 217 for the period from April 1, 1965, to April 6, 1967?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Income-tax Officer be deemed to have merged with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal and that, therefore, the Commissioner cannot direct the Income-tax Officer to charge interest under Section 217 ?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that charging of interest under Section 217 must be deemed to have been waived by the In...
The North Arcot District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC337(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras (Second Additional Bench), dated 30th July, 1974. The only point in dispute relates to the assess-ability of chemical fertilisers. For the assessment year 1967-68, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Vellore (South), taxed the assessee among others on a turnover of Rs. 28,71,627.26 and assessed it at the rate of 31/2 per cent. This turnover related to the sale of 'fertiliser mixture'. According to the assessee, the mixture sold by it was a mixture of inorganic chemical fertilisers mixed with deoiled cake and other fillers and the said mixture did not contain any organic fertiliser. As the inorganic chemical ingredients used in the mixture were already subjected to single point tax at the hands of the suppliers, it was submitted that the fertiliser mixture would not fall within item 21 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Conseq...
S. Kannan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC496(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 4th February, 1975, for the assessment year 1971-72 in a suo motu revision of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.2. The assessee returned a total turnover of Rs. 17,308.17 for the assessment year 1971-72. The assessing officer rejected the amount as incorrect and incomplete and determined the total and taxable turnover to the best of his judgment at Rs. 72,090.80 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchirapalli, while upholding the rejection of the accounts, determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 34,617 and deleted the balance. He further directed this turnover to be assessed under the provisions of Section 7.3. This order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was examined by the Board and it was considered that in so far as it related to the direction for the application of Section 7, the order was not c...
Deputy Commissioner (Ct) Vs. Sivakumar and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1979
Reported in: [1980]45STC436(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19th December, 1974.2. The assessee is a dealer in oil and oilcakes and also groundnut kernels. During the relevant year, the assessee showed in its accounts purchases of groundnut kernels for Rs. 72,145.50 from two dealers, namely, K. Swami of Tiruchengode and Ayyappan Traders of Tiruchengode. The assessee filed the bills relating to the aforesaid purchases and contended that those purchases were only second purchases in this State so as not to be taxed. The assessing authority did not accept this claim of the assessee and brought the turnover to tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also agreed with the assessing authority.3. When the matter came on appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the contention of the assessee was that the purchases were only second purchases and that the bills produced mentioned that the goods in question had already suffered tax. The c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »