Chennai Court February 1980 Judgments
Sri Venkateswara Agencies Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC430(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) dated 19th September, 1979, suo motu revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Cuddalore. The assessee is a dealer in petroleum products. It sold a car and claimed exemption from tax, in respect of the turnover relating to the same, on the ground that its sale was only a second sale, as it had purchased the car from one Muthuswami in this State itself. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nannilam, who made the assessment, stated that the appellant had not produced any recorded proof whether the earlier sale had already suffered tax or not. In this view, he rejected the claim for exemption made by the appellant herein. Against the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Cuddalore. That officer, by his order dated 10th January, 1976, allowed the appeal. He stated that he had carefully considered the f...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Sathar Vs. A. Nawab
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Mad235; (1980)2MLJ287
ORDER1. The defendant in 0. S. No. 439 of 1967, Sub-Court, Coimbatore, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. That suit was instituted by the respondent herein for partition and separate possession of his 66/80 share in respect of a house. The petitioner, his mother, his two brothers and four sisters were the owners of that property and all of them, excepting the petitioner, executed sales of their shares in the house in favour of the respondent herein, who was stranger to the family. Pursuant to such sales and claiming that the respondent was in joint possession of the house along with the petitioner, the suit for partition, referred to earlier, was instituted by the respondent herein on 5-9-1967. On 16-12-1968, the parties put into court a joint memo to the effect that a preliminary decree for partition may be passed; but the question of past and future mesne profits may be relegated to the final decree proceedings. In accordance with that, the learned Subordinate Judge, ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Gift-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. R.M.D.M. Ranganathan Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Mad)221; [1982]133ITR890(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The following three questions have been referred by the Appellate Tribunal under s. 26(1) of the G. T. Act, 1958 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the gift of immovable property belonging to a Hindu undivided family, made by the karta, was void and not liable to gift-ta 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to spouse allowance under section 5(1)(viii) of the Gift-tax Ac 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the penalty levied under section 17(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Ac 2. The assessee is an HUF. The kartas gifted a half share in immovable properties to his wife. He gifted also movables valued at Rs. 20,000. the GTO brought to tax the value of the properties gifted to the wife amounting in all to Rs, 3,52,000, and did not...
Tag this Judgment!The Presidency Club Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Mad)216; [1981]127ITR264(Mad)
1. In this reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred to this court :"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 4,305 is chargeable to income-tax ?"2. The assessee was incorporated as a public limited company by guarantee and runs a club for its members. Its objects are to promote social intercourse among the members of the club, their families and friends and to provide a club house and grounds for the accommodation of members and their families and the friends of members temporarily staying with them. Noportion of the income or property is to be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise by way of profit to persons who at any time were or have been members of the club or to any one or more of them or to any person claiming through any one or more of them. Except with the previous approval of the Central Govt. no remuneration or other benefit in money or money's worth...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver, Coimbatore Vs. S.A. Ramaswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Mad269
1. This matter has come- before the Full Bench on a reference made by a Division Bench consisting of my Lord, the Chief, Justice and Ratnam, J. The facts which gave rise to the said order of reference may briefly be set out. The petitioner herein is the other respondent in S. A. 1606 of 1963, which was allowed by this court on 28-4-1977. Aggrieved against the said judgment the petitioner purported to file a Letters Patent Appeal before this court on the basis of leave granted by this Court while allowing the second appeal. On the office pointing out that the, Letters Patent Appeal is not competent in view of Section 100-A, C. P Code as amended by Central Act 104 of 1976, the petitioner realised that he cannot maintain the appeal. He then filed the present petition for the refund of court-fee purporting to be under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, and Sec. 151, C. P. Code. Section 70 can have no application to the facts of this case as it could not be sai...
Tag this Judgment!Janabai Ammal Vs. T.A.S. Palani Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad62; (1981)1MLJ492
Ratnavel Pandian, J. 1. The above two appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in 0. S. No. 242 of 1969, the former appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff and the latter by the first defendant in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in forma pauperis seeking partition and separate possession of her 115 share or 116 shaze; or 1/10 share or 1/12 share in the plaint schedule properties and recovery of past and future mesne profits in respbet of her sham and. for costs. Her case as pleaded in the plaint is as follows: One Swaminatha Mudaliar, who is the common ancestor in this case, had two sons viz., defendants 1 and 5 in the Buit, and four daughters. of whom the plaintiff is one. Swaminatha Mudaliar owned extensive properties. The fifth defendant Balasubramania Mudaliar got some properties from his father and went out of the family in 1929 itself after executing a release deed dated 12th Aug., 1929 in favour of his father and his brother...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik Sujaudeen Vs. T. Arumugham Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ472
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This revision petition has been brought by a judgment-debtor against an order passed by the executing Court ordering his arrest and detention in the civil prison in execution of a money decree in which the balance amount payable is Rs. 4,905.2. The executing Court ordered his arrest, I am disposed to allow this civil revision petition and set aside that order for the reasons given below. The decree in this case was passed on 21st December, 1977. The application for execution for the arrest of the judgment-debtor was filed by the decree-holder on 23rd February, 1978. In the affidavit in support of his petition, the decree-holder alleged that although the judgment-debtor was possessed of a house, lands and other properties and Was also in receipt of a good income, he had not cared to pay the decree amount, all with a view to cause loss to the decree-holder. On receipt of this execution petition, the Court gave notice to the judgment-debtor on 3rd March, 1978. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Janabai Ammal Vs. T.A.S. Palani Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1980
Reported in: (1980)1MLJ492
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The above two appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by the Subordinate Judge Cuddalore in O.S. No. 242 of 1969, the former appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff and the latter by the first defendant in the suit.2. The plaintiff filed the suit in forma pauperis, seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/5 share or 1/6 share or 1/10 share or 1/12 share in the plaint schedule properties and recovery of past and future mesne profits in respect of her share and for costs. Her case as pleaded in the plaint is as follows: One Swaminatha Mudaliar, who is the common ancestor in this case, had two sons viz., defendants 1 and 5 in the suit, and four daughters, of whom the plaintiff is one. Swaminatha Mudaliar owned extensive properties. The fifth defendant Balasubramania Mudaliar got some properties from his father and went out of the family in 1929 itself after executing a release deed dated 12th August, 1929 in favour of his father and his brother...
Tag this Judgment!Muthaiah Chettiar Vs. Krishnaswami Gounder (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ103
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Mohan, J., dated 22nd August, 1975 made in Second Appeal No. 1561 of 1971. The suit property originally belonged to the deceased first respondent and respondents 2 and 3 herein. O. S. No. 44 of 1958 was filed by one Kuppanna Gounder against Chinnaswami Gounder, the first defendant in the present suit, on the foot of a, promissory note and that suit was decreed. Pending suit, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 44 of 1958, namely, Kuppanna Gounder died, and his legal representatives, namely, his son and widow were added as plaintiffs 2 and 3. In execution of the decree in E.P.R. No. 184 of 1963 the property was brought to sale in Court-auction and was purchased by the appellant herein for a sum of Rs. 6,005 on 6th February, 1964. The sale was confirmed on 5th April, 1965. When the appellant wanted to recover possession, that was obstructed by defendants 2 and 3 in the suit. Hence, the appellant filed O. S. No. 439 of 1967 on...
Tag this Judgment!Valluvar Handloom Textiles, Etc., Etc. Vs. Government of India and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1980
Reported in: (1981)ILLJ458Mad
1. The batch of writ petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment. It is enough if the facts in Writ Petition No. 1800 of 1978 alone are noted. The petitioner-establishment carried on business of manufacturing Jamakalams (carpets) otherwise know as Thari Carpets, which are manufactured by using 22 looms and 2 permanent employees. As such, according to it the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would not apply to the petitioner. Under the Act, the establishment should have at least 20 employees employed therein. This being so, the second respondent, viz., the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras-14, issued a memo to the petitioner calling upon it to submit a return in Form 9 prescribed under the Employees' Provident Fund Schemes, 1952 and also a return in Form 3(FPF) prescribed under paragraph 15 of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. Since the petitioner was contending that the Act itself would not apply in view of the fact t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »