Chennai Court September 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.
G. Balakrishnan Vs. the Official Assignee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1980
Reported in: (1981)1MLJ417
ORDERM.M. Ismail, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Ramaprasada Rao, J., as he then was, dated 1st July, 1977. The facts are not in dispute. The insolvent drew a cheque on 8th December, 1970, but post-dated it as 15th December, 1970 and gave it to one Venkateswara Movies with whom he had transactions in film trade. Venkateswara Movies (mistakenly referred to in the order as 'drawee') discounted the cheque with the appellant, on 29th December, 1970 and according to the appellant, Venkateswara Movies obtained consideration from him. However, the appellant was not permitted to present the cheque for payment from time to time at the instance of Venkateswara Movies and ultimately when the cheque was presented after a period of six months, it was dishonoured. It is thereafter the appellant preferred a claim before the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee rejected the claim holding that the appellant was not a holder in due course and the cheque was not supported by considerat...
Mangilal JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1980
Reported in: (1981)20CTR(Mad)314; [1982]133ITR762(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J.1. This writ petition has been field for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second and third respondents, viz., the Asst. Director of Inspection (Intelligence), I.T. Dept. and the ITO, Coimbatore, respectively, to release the currency notes of Rs. 50,000 seized from the petitioner, Mangilal Jain. The facts of the case may be stated as follows : On March 10, 1972, the officers of the customs department intercepted one Samu Jaffar, and recovered from him a paper packet containing currency notes to the tune of Rs. 50,000. It was alleged that the paper packet was handed over to the said Samu Jaffar by the petitioner, Mangilal Jain, in the presence of one Laxmichand Jain. The customs authorities opened the packet in the presence of the said Samu Jaffar, Laxmichand Jain and the petitioner and two independent witnesses. It was suspected that the sum of Rs. 50,000 which was said to have been handed over by the petitioner of Samu Jaffar was the sale proceeds of smuggle...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Kumudam Publications (P.) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1980
Reported in: (1981)21CTR(Mad)333; [1981]128ITR617(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The date by which the advance tax should have been paid was December 15, 1973. It is common ground that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 4,30,500 as advance tax by cheque on December 14, 1973. It was also been found that there were sufficient funds in the accounts of the assessee as on December 14, 1973. The Treasury Rules which were referred to by the AAC also show that payments shall be deemed to have been made if the cheque is handed over to the Govt. officials or to the Govt. officer authorised to receive money on behalf of the Government on the date on which it is so handed over. The delay, if any, was due to the official of the department in not cashing the cheque in time. Accordingly, we agree with the Tribunal that no question of law arises out of the order. The petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250. ...
Regional Commissioner, Epf, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Vs. Management ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1980
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ28Mad; (1982)ILLJ28Mad; (1981)2MLJ185
Ismail, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of Varadarajan, J, dated 26th July, 1979, allowing Writ Petition No. 837 of 1977. The short question that arose before the learned Judge was whether the special allowance paid by the employer to the employee as a result of an agreement entered into between the parties could be said to form part of dearness allowance of not for the purpose of calculating the contribution payable by the employer under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952, Section 2, clause (b) of the Act defines' the term 'basic wages' 'basic wages' means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment - and which are paid or payable in cash to him but does not include - (i) the cash value of any food concession; (ii) any dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments by whatever name called paid to an employee on account of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›