Chennai Court August 1980 Judgments
Director of Enforcement, Madras Vs. Rama Arangannal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad80; (1981)1MLJ62
1. The above appeal had been filed by the Director of Enforcement against the order dated 13th Dec. 1974 of the Foreign Exchange Regularation Appellate Board, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein and setting aside the order of adjudication of the Deputy Director of Enforcement., dated 28th August 1972 holding the respondents guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 5000 on each of the respondents.2. The appellant, the Director of Enforcement, has filed the appeal claiming him self to be aggrieved against the said order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Board. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents herein as to the maintainability of the appeal by the Director of Enforcement. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is two-fold, (1) Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1073, it is only the Central Government which...
Tag this Judgment!Director of Enforcement, Shastri Bhavan Vs. Rama Arangannal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ64
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The above appeal has been filed by the Director of Enforcement against the order dated 13th December, 1974, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, which allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein and set aside the order of adjudication of the Deputy Director of Enforcement dated 28th August, 1972, holding the respondents guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 on each of the respondents.2. The appellant, the Director of Enforcement, has filed the appeal claiming himself to be aggrieved-against the said order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Board. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents herein as to the maintainability of the appeal by the Director of Enforcement. The preliminary objection raised by the learned: counsel for the respondents arc two-fold: (1) Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, it is onl...
Tag this Judgment!Madura Coats Limited Vs. Labour Court, Madurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1980
Reported in: (1981)ILLJ57Mad
1. The writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 11 of 1978 dated 7th September, 1979. 2. The short facts are as follows : The second respondent/workman raised an industrial dispute about the termination of his services on the following allegations. He was working in the Weaving Department of the writ petitioner for the past thirteen years and was an active member of the Textile Workers Union (C.I.T.U.). A charge memo dated 24th February, 1976, was issued to him, to which he submitted his explanation on 4th March, 1976. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges. As per order dated 12th March, 1976. He was dismissed from service. The enquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper. Principals of natural justice had not been followed. This was a clear case of victimisation. Hence, it must be declared that the order of dismissal was illegal and that he must be reinstat...
Tag this Judgment!United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1980
Reported in: [1985]153ITR81(Mad)
1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, has sent us a consolidated statement of the case covering many references. We believe there might be occasions when the mechanics of a consolidated reference on different questions of law covering more than one assessment of the same assessee, or covering more that one assessee on identical question of law, would be a convenient procedure for dispatch of judicial business both by the Tribunal and by the High Court and the Supreme Court. But there are occasions when a groupal reference turns out to be a positive handicap for a proper determination of the questions at issue. In our view, consolidation of cases should not be resorted to merely for their labour-saving propensity alone. The purpose of consolidation must be to ensure a better appreciation of the legal perspectives involved in the questions referred and a more satisfactory determination of the baisc principles involved in those questions than would be achieved by a case-by-case di...
Tag this Judgment!Thanthi Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1980
Reported in: [1983]141ITR101(Mad)
M.M. Ismail, C.J. 1. This is an application for stay of collection of income-tax pending the reference in T.C. No. 1240 of 1979, relating to the assessment year 1968-69. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from 1962 to 1967, the petitioner had been crediting the account of the educational institution with the amounts in question, that the I.T. Dept. did not raise any objection whatever, that suddenly with reference to the assessment year 1968-69, a new ITO changed in view and took the stand that the mere crediting of the account was not enough, that the amounts should have been actually paid in order to attract the exemption under s. 11 of the I.T. Act, and that, otherwise the petitioner was liable to pay the tax, and that, accordingly, the petitioner, had been subjected to tax. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said action of he ITO is the subject-matter of a few writ petitions pending of the file of this court, as well as of the reference i...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Jagatheesan Vs. Veerammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ53
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal raises a simple but an interesting question. The respondents herein filed a suit for dissolution of partnership against the appellant herein, originally, in the District Munsif's Court, Salem, in O.S. No. 1384 of 1968. In that suit, summons was issued to the defendant, the appellant herein, and be entered appearance through his counsel and took time for filing a written statement, Thereafter, a written statement was filed wherein he questioned the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court to entertain and try that suit. The objection based on pecuniary jurisdiction was ultimately upheld by the District Munsif's Court and the plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs took the plaint and presented the same before the Sub Court, Salem, which bad the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction and the same was taken on file as O.S. No. 25 of 1976 When summons in that suit was se...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnusamy and ors. Vs. the Tamil Nadu State Wakf Board, Through Its Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ252
G. Ramanujam, J.1. When the above appeal filed by some of the defendants in O.S. No. 30 of 1974 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondent-wakf Board raised a preliminary objection that proper court-fee had not been paid on the memorandum of grounds of appeal and unless the appellants pay the requisite court-fee, the appeal cannot be proceeded with. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the appellants have paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 15 in the appeal memorandum instead of paying the court-fee under Section 25(a) of the Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act read with Section 52 and that the concession of paying a court fee given by G.O. Ms No. 1742, Home, dated 9th July, 1969 is available only to the Wakf Board when it files the suit for recovery of possession of wakf property and that the defendant in a suit filed by the Wakf Board cannot take advantage of the said concession and pay a fixed Co...
Tag this Judgment!Hema Ramaswami Vs. K.M. Valarence Panjani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ0182
Ramanujam, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, in so far as it is against the appellant, who is the fourth claimant before the Tribunal. 2. On 9th July, 1971, at about 6.15 p.m. near Vellar Bridge, Thozhudur, South Arcot Dt., on the Madras Trichi Main Road, lorry bearing registration No. PYK 1249 driven by one Veeraswami collided with an Ambassador car MSC 7340 driven by one Ramaswami, husband of the appellant. As a result of the said collision, the said Ramaswami sustained multiple grievous injuries and he succumbed to those injuries on the way to the hospital. The driver of the car, who was also travelling with the said Ramaswami, also sustained injuries. On the ground that the said collision was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the dependants, the mother, wife and two children of the deceased Ramaswami, filed a claim before the Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Hema Ramaswami Vs. K.M. Valarance Panjani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad174; [1983]54CompCas600(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore in so far as it is against the appellant, who is the fourth claimant before the Tribunal.2. On 9-7-1971 at about 6.15 p.m. near Vellar Bridge Thozhudur, South Arcot District on the Madras Trichy Main Road, lorry bearing registration number PYK 1249, driven by one Veerasami collided with an Ambassador Car MSC 7340, driven by one Ramasami, the husband of the appellant. As a result of the said collision, the said Ramasami sustained multiple grievous injuries and he succumbed to those injuries on the way to the hospital. The driver of the car, who was also traveling with the said Ramasami also sustained injuries. On the ground that the said collision was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the dependents, the mother, wife and two children of the deceased Ramasami filed a claim before the Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Ra 2,00,...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Muthu Vs. Veerammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad307
ORDER1. Defendants 1 to 4 in 0. S, No. 213 of 1968. Sub, Court, Coimbatore, are the petitioners in this civil revision petition which is directed against the order dismissing an application filed by them praying for the issue of a cheque in a sum of Rs. 13 259-23 in favour of their counsel. The suit, 0. S. No. 213 of 1968 was filed by the respondent herein for partition and separate possession of their share in the properties and on 4-81971, a preliminary decree was passed against which an appeal was filed to this court in A. S. No. 646 of 1972, which also stood dismissed. The petitioners claim that as per clauses (8) and (9) of the preliminary decree, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 14588-30 being the dividend due to the father of the petitioners from the 14th defendant in the suit who had deposited a sum of Rs. 13704-60 into court as per clauses (8) and (9) of the preliminary decree. The petitioners claim that out of this amount they are entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs. 13259-23 a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »