Chennai Court March 1980 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.
K.V. Rajendran Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Madurai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1980
Reported in: [1981(42)FLR138]; (1980)IILLJ275Mad
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner is a director of Sri Ganapathy Mills Co. Ltd., Tirunelveli, hereinafter referred to as the company and he seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent herein to forbear from taking any further action under S. 25Q for violation of S. 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act on the ground that Ss. 25N and 25Q are unconstitutional. 2. The company is a spinning mill employing more than 300 workmen, In or about the beginning of 1977 it found the posts of two clerks, one store assistant and one office boy to be superflous to its needs and as a measure of economy it decided to abolish those posts. By a notice dated 16-1-77, the company retrenched respondents 2 to 5 holding the posts occupied by them to be surplus in accordance with S. 25F of the Act. Each of them was given one month's pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation as per S. 25F. Further, by a notice in Form R dated 16-1-77 the company informed t...
Raj Lubricants Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1980
Reported in: [1980]46STC449(Mad)
Ismail, C.J.1. These are petitions against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, holding that the sale of mineral oil effected by the petitioners herein was liable to sales tax. The facts are not in controversy. The petitioners purchased mineral oil from the Indian Oil Corporation under the brand name, Indrex Oil Light, and they paid tax thereon. Subsequently, this oil purchased by them was subjected to different chemical processes and the resultant oil was sold under different commercial names. The order of the Tribunal extracts the procedure adopted by the petitioners in the processing of the oil and the same is as follows :- 'Procedure for processing transformer oil. - The base oil used is a kind of mineral oil marketed by the Indian Oil Corporation, Madras-2, under the brand name, Indrex Oil Light. The above oil is treated with sulphuric acid of 1 to 2 per cent strength for removing aromatic and unsaturated compounds present in the oil. The quantity of the a...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Lakshmi Card Clothing Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: [1984]149ITR712(Mad)
Venugopal, J.1. This is a reference at the instance of the Revenue referring the following question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that payment of annual fee under 9 of the collaboration agreement was in the nature of revenue expenditure and should therefore, be allowed under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of card clothing. The company was incorporated in 1961. It entered into a collaboration agreement with Graf Sales Limited of Switzerland (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'foreign company') on February 23, 1961. Clauses 3 and 9 of the collaboration agreement provide : '3. For the consideration mentioned in clause 9 hereof, Graf shal grant to Lakshmi the sole exclusive non-transferable right to manufacture and sell in the Republic of India, the Portugueses possession in India, the Kingdom of Nepal and neighboring c...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. Madras Wire Products
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Mad)11; [1980]123ITR722(Mad)
1. The assessee is a registered firm carrying on business of manufacture and sale of electric wire and cables. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67, the relevant previous year ending April 30, 1966, the assessee submitted a return disclosing an income of Rs. 2,19,820. It claimed relief in respect of a sum of Rs. 40,148 under s. 84 of the I.T. Act as representing 6% of Rs. 6,69,130 said to be capital employed in the business. The ITO found that the machinery of the value of Rs. 61,172 had not been actually used during the relevant previous year. He, therefore, declined to grant relief pertaining to the same and allowed only Rs. 36,441 by way of relief under s. 84. The assessee had also claimed a set-off of Rs. 55,752 representing the loss for the assessment year 1964-65, but that was also not allowed and the ITO determined the total income at Rs. 6,07,368. 2. The assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC contending that he should have been allowed relief under s. 84 in respect of Rs....
Shardlow India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: (1980)19CTR(Mad)232; [1981]128ITR571(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The following question has been referred at the instance of the assessee : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit derived from the sales of import entitlements would not be entitled to relief under section 80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee is a priority industry, which is entitled to a rebate under s. 80E of the I.T. Act, 1961. It manufactures forgings and stampings, which are automobile parts. In determining the income on which the rebate under s. 80E of the Act is available, the ITO excluded a sum of Rs. 1,70,245, being the profit on sales of import entitlements. The assessee obtained the entitlements on the basis of the export performance. The ITO excluded the same on the ground that this did not have any relation to the manufacturing operations of the assessee. This view was confirmed by the AAC and the Tribunal. Under s. 80E, in order to get the benefit of deduction, the pro...
Saradamani Vs. Rajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad217
ORDER1. This civil revision Petition raises the question as to whether a decree obtained against a minor defendant ex parte can be regarded as a nullity after the minor comes of age and accuses the guardian ad litem of improperly allowing the suit to be disposed of ex parte.2. The petitioner in this civil revision petition was a Party to a partition suit. She was impleaded as the 5th defendant. She was a minor at the time, represented in the suit by her mother and guardian who was also impleaded in her own right, as the first defendant. Both these defendants opposed the partition suit. They filed a written statement to that effect. It came to Pass, however that on the day when the suit was Posted for trial. And was called the minor's guardian did not turn up Learned counsel, who had entered appearance both for the minor and her guardian in the suit, then reported no instructions. On this representation the Court set them ex parte and proceeded to pass an ex parte preliminary decree as ...
Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. the Union of India Owning Souther ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ126
G. Ramanujam, J.1. These appeals arise out of four suits filed by the same consignee for compensation against the railways for short delivery of the goods and the common questions that arise in all these appeals are:(1) When the goods are carried by various railways, which of the railways is liable for the shortage?(2) Whether the suits so far as they relate to the Madras Port Trust will be barred by the provisions of Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act, 1905?A.S. No. 311 of 1976.--Hindustan Steel Limited, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3209 of 1972 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant herein. Hindustan Steel Limited, hereinafter referred to as the company, booked at railway risk from Alloy Steel Plant, Durga-pur-8, a consignment of 18.750 metric tonnes of Alloy Steel Billets and Rounds under railway invoice, dated 25th November, 1969, in a wagon to be delivered to it at Madras Harbour. The aforesaid wagon arrived in Madras Harbour on 13th December, 1969 with p...
M. Muthayya Vs. Kamu Alias Kamala Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ107
V. Sethuraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the second defendant in O.S. No. 89 of 1975 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of. Triuchi. There was one T.M. Meenakshisundaram, who died on 28th June, 1967 in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Coimbatore, when he was working there as a Revenue Divisional Officer in Erode. The first plaintiff claimed that she was married to the said Meenakshisundaram as the second wife and that her two daughters plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children born out of the said wedlock. The first defendant is the first wife of the said Meenakshisundaram and the second defendant is their son. It may be mentioned here that the second defendant is an advocate by profession practicing in Tiruchirapalli.2. The first defendant gave birth to the second defendant in or about 1941, and by about 1943, she became mentally and physically afflicted with the result that there could be no conjugal life between Meenakshisundaram and the first defendant. She went over to ...
Sri Ranga Vilas Ginning and Oil Mills Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1980
Reported in: [1982]133ITR85(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This group of reference under s. 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, relate to the case of Sri Ranga Vilas Ginning and Oil Mills, Coimbatore, for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1971-72. The questions of law set out in T. C. Nos. 734 to 739 of 1976 are as follows : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 39,940, Rs. 23,345, Rs. 23,074, Rs. 21,642, Rs. 24,246 and Rs. 24,603 received consequent to entering into contract with the President of India on May 1, 1963, for the supply of water did not represent agricultural income and was, therefore, not exempt from taxation under the Income-tax Act, for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the losses claimed of Rs. 7,301, Rs. 16,130, Rs. 9,975, Rs. 18,891, Rs. 3,583 and Rs. 16,500 were loss...
In Re: Kamala Sugar Mills Ltd.;
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1980
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas308(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J. 1. C.P. No. 70 of 1978 has been filed by Kamala Sugar Mills Ltd., Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor-company'), and C.P. No. 71 of 1978 has been filed by Tirumurti Mills Ltd., Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as 'the transferor-company'), under ss. 391(1) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, for sanction being accorded to a scheme of arrangement and amalgamation of the said two companies which has been approved by the members of the two companies. The transferor-company was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, on July 23, 1935. Its authorised capital is Rs. 30 lakhs made up of 26,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each and 4,000 preference shares of Rs. 100 each of which 14,635 equity shares of Rs. 100 each were issued and all the shares were fully paid up. The company was formed to carry on the business of ginning, spinning, weaving and manufacturing or dealing in cotton or other fibrous substances and the preparation of dyeing or colourin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »