Chennai Court August 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.
The Management, Balajee Cotton Mills Ltd., Salem Vs. M.C. Manickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ350
V. Ratnam, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 at the instance of the management of Balaji Cotton Mills Limited against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, dated 20th August, 1979 in W. C. No. 50 of 1978. The respondent herein filed the petition under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923(hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation from the appellant in respect of an injury stated to have been sustained by him. According to the respondent, he was a workman employed by the appellant and that on 4th February, 1978, while working and cleaning the cording machine, his right hand was pulled into the machine and was crashed and cut off upto the arm which necessitated amputation of the right hand below the shoulder level. Claiming that his monthly wages earned amounted to Rs. 156 the respondent claimed a compensation in a sum of Rs. 18,816.2. This claim of the respondent was ...
C. Alagirisamy Naidu Vs. the Collector of Madurai District and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ372
M.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J., dated 19th July, 1976, dismissing W. P. No. 2730 of 1976, filed by the appellant herein. The appellant was a Higher Grade teacher working in K. Vellakulam Panchayat Union, and by the order, dated 24th June, 1976, passed by the Collector of Madurai, the appellant was transferred to Aladipatti in Kodaikanal Panchayat Union. It was this order that was challenged in the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. The order was challenged on two grounds. One was that under Section 60(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, it was the Government that had the power to transfer and that the Collector had no such power. The second was that, in any event, before the order of transfer was made, the concerned Panchayat Unions should have been consulted and that in this case there was no such consultation. The learned Judge gave notice to the Government Pleader, who represented to the Court that the power of the Government un...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. K.A. Kuppuswami Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1980
Reported in: [1981]130ITR464(Mad)
1. The assessee is a HUF engaged in the manufacture and sale of art silk cloth. For the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 6,317. During the course of examination of accounts, the ITO found certain credits in the name of Multani bankers and the assessee was asked to prove the genuineness of the credits. The assessee put in a petition stating that the total sales admitted of Rs. 2,52,433 included export sales in two invoices to the extent of Rs. 1,42,800 on July 25, 1962, and the exports were made actually by one J. K. K. Natarajan Chettiar and that the assessee was only a name-lender. After deducting the export sales, he showed actual sales during the year ended April 12, 1963, as Rs. 1,09,633 and filed a revised return on that basis on September 29, 1965, admitting a total income of Rs. 9,683. Natarajan Chettiar gave a statement admitting that he would have obliged the assessee with cash and goods for the export of cloth to the extent of Rs. 1,4...
Standard Batteries Ltd. Vs. Appraiser, Appraising Deptt. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT257(Mad)
ORDER1. The question for consideration in these writ petitions is whether fibre glass sleevings used in the manufacture of plastic glass tubes which in turn are used in the manufacture of miner cap lamp batteries fall within item 53 of the Customs Tariff viz. textile manufactures, not otherwise specified. 2. The petitioner company manufactures miner cap lamp batteries. To insulate positive battery plates they use plastic glass tubes. These plastic glass tubes are made out of imported fibre glass or glass wool sleevings. The fibre glass sleevings are knitted out of a very special kind of fibre glass yarn into tubular sleevings of 0.7 c.m. diameter. The sleevings are made into plastic glass tubes with the use of an outer rigid P.V.C. covering. The plastic glass tubes are then assembled into tubular positive groups over a spine arrangement. The fibre glass sleevings are specially designed and manufactured for the plastic glass tubes of miner cap lamp batteries made by the petitioner compa...
R.S. Muthuswami Gounder Vs. A. Annamalai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Mad220
1. The first defendant R. S. Muthuswami Gounder, who has lost in both the Courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal. The plaintiff A. Annamalai filed the suit for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for recovering vacant possession of the same and also for a mandatory injunction directing the demolition of the superstructure put up on the, property by the first defendant and for damages of Rs. 200 for use and occupation of the property by the first defendant at Rs. 100 per mensem from the middle of January 1972. 2. The suit property is a vacant site measuring 42 ft. east to west and 136 ft. north to south on the west and 126 ft. north to south on the east, in T. S. No. 907/2 in Erode Municipal town, stated to be in three plots. According to the plaint, T. S. No. 907/2 belonged to defendants 5 to 7 and some other co-sharers. Defendants 5 to 7 got for their share in the partition effected under Ex. A. 1, dated 6th May 1967, the portion marked A, B, C, D in the ...
K. Jamal Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1980
Reported in: 1981(8)ELT162(Mad)
1. The petitioner is a firm, inter alia, carrying on business of import and sale of different edible oils and other allied products. On 1-7-1977 a public notice was issued by the Collector of Customs, to the following effect - 'G.S.R. 463(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section (25) of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supresession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue and Banking (Revenue Wing) No. 25 - Customs, dated 8th February 1977, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts palmoleins falling within Chapter 15 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) when imported into India from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule.' 2. Thereafter, on 11th January, 1978, the petitioner's orders were confirmed by the brokers. On 18th February, 1979, there was a shipment o...
M. Jamal Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1980
Reported in: 1981LC14D(Madras)
ORDERMohan, J.1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the ' petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 10-8-79 and made herein and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the order in Section 25/1874/79 dated 20-4-1979 on the file of the fourth respondent and comprised in the return of the respondents herein to writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. Chengalvarayan for . M/s. Anand Datgupta and Sagar Advocates for the petitioner and of Mr. K.N. Balasubramanian Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents herein the Court made the following order:1. The petitioner is a firm, inter alia carrying on business of import and sale of different edible oils and other allied products. On 1.7.1977 a public notice was issued by the Collector of Customs, to the following effect:G.S.R. 463 (E)-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (...
Gemini Pictures Circuit P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil ... Overruled
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Mad)301; [1981]130ITR686(Mad)
Venugopal, J.1. Under a sale deed dated 2nd September, 1944, Mrs. Gulab Bhai Mukund Rao Rane of Bombay purchased a property known as Spencer's Hotel, comprising of over 17 acres, 16 grounds and 825 sq. ft., in Mount Road, Madras, for a sum of Rs. 7,65,000. From that lady, the assessee purchased a portion comprising of an extent of 79 grounds 242 sq. ft. for Rs. 5,53,705 under a registered sale deed dated October 27, 1950. The property purchased was comprised in door No. 151, Mount Road, Madras. At the time of purchase, there was a hotel building on a portion of it and the rest was all vacant land. After purchase, the assessee put up two buildings on an extent of 20 grounds on the northern extremity of the property. One of it was occupied by the assessee for the business and the other occupied by its sister concern. A common road of a width of 25 feet leading from Mount Road was formed at the western extremity of the property consisting of about 7.6 grounds, and an extent of 9.8 grounds...
Kesava Naicker Vs. Sivagnana Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Mad225; (1980)2MLJ254
ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent-16dlord 'filed an application under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has committed willful default, in the payment of the rents from June 1976, up to May, 1977. According to the respondent, the premises in the occupation of the petitioner had been let to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 16 and the petitioner had not paid rents from June 1976 to May 1977, for a period of 12 months amounting to Rs. 192, and that such nonpayment was willful. In addition, the respondent also claimed that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was originally let out for non-residential purposes viz. to carry on the business in tailoring but that the premises had been converted into a living room. The respondent had furt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›