Chennai Court July 1980 Judgments
S.K. Nataraja Mudaliar and Co. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1980
Reported in: [1982]51STC55(Mad)
ORDERPadmanabhan, J.1. These writ petitions arise under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and involve a common question of law. 2. I shall confine myself to W.P. No. 4389 of 1977 for a narration of the statement of facts. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business in pulses, grams and gram dhal under the name and style of M/s. S. K. Nataraja Mudaliar and Co., and is an assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 3. Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, declares certain goods to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce and section 15 imposes conditions and restrictions subject to which the state Government can impose tax on the internal trade in those goods, the main condition being that no State shall have a system of levy other than a single point levy, at a single stage to be specified by law. Section 14 was amended by Central Tax Act No. 103 of 1976 and in the items included in section 14, item (vi-a) was introduced. Item (vi-a) reads thus : ...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Arumugasamy Vs. Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1980
Reported in: 1984(16)ELT82(Mad)
1. The facts in this writ petition may be briefly set out as follows : The petitioner is the proprietor of Brilliant Match Works, Sivakasi, and is a licensee under the Central Excises and Salt Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, holding licence L. 4 No. 4/M/71. On 14-3-1973, he received a show cause notice from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Sivakasi. The show cause notice stated that in contravention of Rules 173-F, 173-G(4) read with 52-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the petitioner had cleared 13250 gross of 50's matches without payment of duty and without bringing them into the statutory accounts maintained for Central Excise purposes by them and without a gate pass. The petitioner was therefore called upon to explain why a penalty should not be imposed on him under rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules and why duty on 13250 gross of 50's matches should not be demanded under rule 173-Q. This show cause notice was obviously based on a surprise check of the acc...
Tag this Judgment!K. Appa Rao Vs. V.L. Varadaraj (Since Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ57
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendant in C.S. No. 81 of 1968 on the original side of this Court is the appellant in this appeal. The respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, who died pending the suit. The deceased plaintiff laid the suit for the recovery of the amounts due on a promissory note, marked in this case as Exhibit P-1, dated 27th March, 1967, executed by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 49,671 with interest thereon at 101/2 per cent. per annum. The defendant contended in the main that he had several money dealings with; the deceased plaintiff from the year 1945 that the deceased plaintiff bad been a professional money lender; that he had been charging interest on arrears of interest due on each loan advanced by him under a promissory note and taking renewal promissory notes for the total amount including compound interest every two or three years; that for the suit promissory note, the actual amount borrowed by him was only Rs. 17,300 under four promi...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Andi Pandaram Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charita ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ206
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is an appeal by the second plaintiff Chinna Andi Pandaram against the judgment and decree dated 13th day of August, 1975 in O. S. No. 305 of 1970 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Salem, dismissing the suit filed by him along with one Komara Pandaram alias Komarandi Pandaram for declaration that they are the hereditary trustees of the Vinayagar, Mari Amman and Pidari Amman temples of Laddivadi village, after setting aside the order of the Commissioner, H R. and C. E. Board, in Appeal No. 63 of 1967 on his file and for a declaration that they are entitled to enjoy the suit properties hereditarily and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 2 to 7, the trustees appointed by the H. R. and C. E. Board, from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.2. The case of the plaintiffs as put forward by them in the plaint is that Survey No. 111/2 of Laddivadi village was granted as devadayam t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Shanmugham Vs. K. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ383
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Order 21, rub, 29, Code of Civil Procedure, praying for a stay of operation of the decree in O.S. No. 323 of 1970, District Munsif's Court, Periyakulam and all further execution proceedings therein till the final disposal of O.S. No. 85 of 1978, District Munsif's Court, Periyakulam. The property in question is an extent of 1 acre and 89 cents in survey No 2281, Thamaraikulatn Village, Periyakulam taluk, Madurai District. One M. C. Gurusamy Reddiar founded in Krishnapuram village a Vinayakar Temple called ''Nalam Tharum Vinayakar Temple' and dedicated the property referred to earlier 10 the temple under the terms of a deed of settlement dated 14th June, 1945. He was also functioning as the trustee of the temple. On 20th March, 1968, by a document styled as a deed of transfer of trust, M. G. Gurusamy Reddiar purported to transfer the office of the truste...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Ahmed Vs. Salima Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ372
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The 3rd respondent in R.E. No. 290 of 1975 in R.E. No. 429 of 1963 in O.S. No. 733 of 1956, Principal District Munsif's Court, Tirupattur, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The properties belonged to deceased K. Mohamed Zacria Sahib, whose widow, sons and daughters figure as respondents Nos. 1 to 10 in this civil revision petition. Mohamed Zacria executed a mortgage in favour of one Margabandu. the father of the 11th respondent herein and a suit in O.S. No. 733 of 1956 was instituted for enforcing the mortgage. On 17th September, 1957, a preliminary decree was passed which was later followed up by a final decree on 30th June, 1960. In execution thereof, the properties were brought to sale and the 12th respondent, who is stated to be a close relation of the 11th respondent, purchased the properties in Court auction on 18th March, 1964. The sale was confirmed on 29th May, 1964 and the 12th respondent also took delivery through Court on 29th July, 196...
Tag this Judgment!K. Lakshmandoss Vs. Raghava and Veera and ors .
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad48
1. An interesting question of law has arisen in this appeal, which is directed against the common order of Ismail J. (as he then was) in L P. No. 66 of 1977and Appln. No. 561 of 1977 and 70 of 1978 on the file of the original Side of this Court2. The said I. P. No. 66 of 1977 has been filed on 6-8-1977 under Section 9(e) of the Presidency Towns solvency, Act, here in after referred to as the Act, by a creditor by name Munusami Reddiar for adjudication of the firm of Messrs Raghava and Veera and its partners; Messrs Raghava Reddi and Veera Reddi as insolvents. The said insolvency petition was contested by the debtors. On 24-9-1977 one Lachhmandas, the appellant herein, who was another creditor of the same debtors filed, Appln. No. 561 of 1977 under Section 92 of the Act, for substituting him in the place of the petitioning creditor in I. P. 66 of 1977 and for permission to continue the insolvency proceedings against the debtors alleging that the debtors are trying to settle with the pet...
Tag this Judgment!K. Lakshmandoss, Sole Proprietor, Sethkanyalal Lachmandas Vs. Raghava ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1980
Reported in: (1980)2MLJ498
G. Ramanujam, J.1. An interesting question of law has arisen in this appeal, which is directed against the common order of Ismail, J. (as he then was) in I. P. No 66 of 1977 and Application Nos. 561 of 1977 and 70 of 1978 on the file of the Original Side of this Court.2. The said I. P. No. 66 of 1977 has been filed on 6th August, 1977 under Section 9(e) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act hereinafter referred to as the Act, by a creditor by name Munusami Reddiar for adjudication of the firm of Messrs. Raghava and Veera and its partners, Messrs. Raghava Reddi and Veera Reddi as insolvents. The said insolvency petition was contested by the debtors. On 24th September, 1977 one Lachmandas, the appellant herein, who was the another creditor of the same debtors filed Application No. 561 of 1977 under Section 92 of the Act, for substituting him in the place of the petitioning creditor in I. P. No. 66 of 1977 and for permission to continue the insolvency proceedings against the debtors alle...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India Vs. the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad162
Ismael, C.J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of -Ratnavel Pandian. J. rendered in C. S. No. 116 of 1972, on the Me of the Original Side of this court. Since most of the fact5r are not in controversy. we are not elaborately referring to the pleadings as well as the evidence and we shall refer only to that part of the pleadings and the evidence which will enable us to concentrate on the crucial questions involved for decision in this appeal.2. There were two plaintiffs in the suit, the first being the Insurance Company and the second being a company by name Algappa Textiles (Cochin) Ltd. The admitted facts are - 50 Bales of fully pressed cotton were despatched by Messrs E. I, C. Khamgoan on 21-1-1971 for delivery to the second plaintiff in the suit at Pudukad railway station between Cochin and Shoranur. The goods arrived at the Pudukad railway 'station on 12-21971. The goods were unloaded with the help of coolies engaged by the second plaintiff itself on 13...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Vs. V. Ganapathi Ramalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad299
Ramanujam, J.1. Both these appeals and the connected memorandum*Against order of Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal (Sub. J.) Cuddalore D/- 24-3-1977.Of cross objections arise out of the same award passed in M. A. C. T. 0. P. Nos. 15 and 41 of 1974, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, and, therefore. they are dealt with together.2. On the morning of 11-10-1973, there was a collision between a bus MDF 6676 and a car MSS 549 in Kothattai village, Virdhachalam. taluk, on the Virdhachalam-Chidambaram road. As a result of the said collision, the driver of the car died instantaneously and the occupant of the car sustained serious injuries. On the ground that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, by its driver, the dependants of the driver of the car. who died instantaneously, claimed a compensation of rupees one lakh in 0. P. 15 of 1974, filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Cuddalore, The occuPant of the car, who was injured as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »