Chennai Court November 1981 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.
Bhoruka Steels Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC70(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from detaining the goods or levying or demanding the payment of advance sales tax for the release of goods of the petitioners transported from the head office of the petitioners at Bangalore to their branch office at Tiruchi. According to the petitioner, its stocks are getting transferred in lorries from its Bangalore factory to its godown or branch depot at Tiruchi and such stock transfers cannot be classified as sales so as to attract the assessment provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioner further states that the sales tax due on the respective sales will be paid by it to the assessing authority at Coimbatore, on whose file the petitioner is an assessee. The grievance of the petitioner is that the stocks transferred in the above manner are getting detained by the second respondent at different check posts...
India Overseas Bank, Komaralingam Vs. G. Ramalinga Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad91
1. In the instant case, the only point raised on behalf of the petitioner by Miss B. Dominique is that the fees ought to have been awarded as per the provisions of the Rules framed under the Legal Practitioners' Fees Rules, 1973 (R. O. C. No. 1032/64-F 1).2. By virtue of the powers conferred by Art. 227 of the Constitution of India read with S. 27 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, 1879 (Central Act XVIII of 1879), and all other powers there unto enabling and in supersession of all rules relating to the fees payable to Legal Practitioners' and incorporated in Sec. C, Chapter X, Part II of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders Vol. I (1941 Edition), the High Court had farmed the rules (R. O. C. No. 1032/64. F1) and these rules are known as Legal Practitioners' Rules, 1973. These had come into vogue by virtue of the previous approval of the Governor of Tamil Nadu.Rule 3 (2) (v) provides that if the amount or value of the suit exceeds Rs. 50,000, but does not exceed Rupees 1,00,00...
Sathyamurthy Vs. Sri Vasan Finance Corporation by Its Managing Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ242
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. This revision petition raises a. very interesting question of law which, of course, arises in turn out of the consideration whether the order of the Court below, which is the subject-matter of this revision, petition is revisable under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. Mr. R. Chandrasekaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the lower Court had not taken into consideration whether the judgment-debtor has got sufficient means to pay the debt in. accordance with the provisions of Section 51 Civil Procedure Code, as well as Order 21, Rules 37, 38 and 40, Civil Procedure Code, and as such, this order under revision is liable to be revised by this Court. On the other hand, Mr. G. Krishnan, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it is not as if the judgment-debtor has not gone into the box and deposed about the situations that are prevailingat the time of the hearing of R.E.P. No. 266 of 1980. The order made in the above petition, i.e., R.E....
Sri La Sri Siva Shanmugha Arumugha Meijnana Sivachariar, Tirupapuliyur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1981
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ106
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This Second Appeal involves a very interesting point of law and that is whether a Government Order, passed under a special enactment, is retrospective or prospective in operation. It is well-established that unless a Government Order specifically incorporates as a condition that it is retrospective in operation, it cannot be construed that it has got a retrospective operation. But it is submitted by Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for the respondents, that the decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court would show that a Government Order has to be construed as retrospective in operation because 'Law' in Article 13 of the Constitution of India, is defined by the Supreme Court in the decision viz, Shankari Prasad v. Union of India 1951 S.C.J. 775 : (1951) 2 M.L.J. 683 : 64 L.W. 1005 : 1952 S.C.R. 89 : A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 458, as including rules, regulations, notifications and Government Orders and, as such, when a Government Order is passed by a relevant...
Witco Match Works, Kalugumalai and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1981
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT345(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J. 1. In respect of matches which is an excisable commodity, the Central Government issued a notification No. 42 of 1981, dated 1st March, 1981, in exercise of their powers conferred on them under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and that reads as follows - 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts matches in or in relation to the manufacture of which none of the following mechanical process, namely :- (i) box making; (ii) frame filling; (iii) dipping of splints in the composition for match heads; (iv) filling of boxes with matches; (v) labelling or banderolling, or both; and (vi) packaging, is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, falling under item No. 38 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and cleared for home consumption by a manufacturer; from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as...
M. Manirajan Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mylapore Range, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad180
1. The appellant herein filed the writ petition making the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mylapore Range The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order (South) Madras and the Commissioner of Police, Egmore, as party respondents, for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent in R. C. No. 246/ 27154/E5/80 and to quash the order dated 8-10-1980. The appellant is running a lodging house at the premises bearing door No. 27 North Made St, Mylapore, Madras 4. The said property originally belonged to Messrs. R. V. Surendra Rao and R. V. Subba Rao and it is with them the appellant became a tenant and with their consent he obtained licence No. 253-B for running a lodging house under the Madras City Police Act of 1888, After obtaining proper licence. the appellant was running a hotel under the name and style of Suprabath Lodging.' Necessary Corporation licence has also been obtained by the appellant. one -B. S. Kumar and B. S. Raiendran purchased ~the ...
K. R. Kuppuswami Iyengar Vs. Samikkannu Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ13
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The landlord is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. An application under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was filed by the petitioner, praying for an order of eviction against the respondent, on the ground that the respondent had not paid the fair rent fixed in respect of an extent of 1 acre and 4 cents and also the rent of Rs. 500 in respect of an extent of 33 cents of coconut tope, for fasli 1382 (1st July, 1972 to 30th June, 1973). In the course of the application, the petitioner had stated that fair rent had been fixed only in respect of an extent of 1 acre and 4 cents out of a total extent of 1 acre and 37 cents at Rs. 286 and that even that rent had not been paid in respect of the cultivable lands. As regards the coconut tope of an extent of 33 cents, the petitioner stated that the yield from the 51 coconut trees would be 3,000 coconuts out of which the petiti...
Kandaswami Gounder Vs. T. Subramania Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ193
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 147 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Udumalpet, is the petitioner-herein. He filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant. The defendant on 4th February, 1978, filed the written statement. On 14th March, 1979, the suit was posted in the list for final hearing. On that day, it was adjourned to 16th March, 1979. On 16th March, 1979, the counsel for the defendant was present, but the defendant was absent. Hence, the counsel for the defendant reported no instruction. On 17th March, 1979, the Court passed an ex parte decree, against the defendant in the suit. On 24th March, 1979, the respondent herein filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. The trial Court dismissed that petition on the ground that the doctor who gave the certificate regarding the illness of the defendant, has not been examined. Aga...
K. Pugal Vs. P. Asoka
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ303
ORDERP. Venugopal, J.1. This civil revision petitioner in all these petitions is the first defendant in the suit. An ex parte preliminary decree was passedagainsthim on 20th December, 1974. He filed a petition I.A. No. 703 of 1976 under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to vacate the exparte preliminary decree and the order passed is the subject-matter of C.R.P. No. 1702 of 1980. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 704 of 1976 under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside the exparte order passed in final decree proceedings and the order passed against him is the subject-matter of C.R.P. No. 1703 of 1980. The petitioner filed a third application I.A. No. 72 of 1976 for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him in the application for appointment of a Commissioner and the order passed against him is the subject-matter of C.R.P. No. 1704 or 1980. All these three civil revision petitions are heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner appearing in p...
P.R. Lakshmi Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC5(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These two sales tax cases raise the question whether the wood sold by the assessee in each case can be regarded as 'firewood' and so entitled to exemption from sales tax under a Gazette notification issued by the State Government in Notification No. II(1)/Rev/386(g)/74 dated 4th March, 1974. The notification reads as under : 'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959), the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes an exemption in respect of the tax payable by any dealer under the said Act on sale of - (1) ................ (2) ................. (3) Firewood.' 2. It will be observed that the exemption under this notification does not define or explain what 'firewood' means, what the expression includes, and what it excludes. The absence of such a definition is by no means regrettable. On the contrary, it leaves open the subject for discussion on the basis of sound common ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »