Chennai Court December 1981 Judgments
Ellapuram Panchayat Union Vs. Bhavaniamaman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad248
ORDER1. The defendant in S. No. 413 of 1972, District Munsif's Court, Tiruvellore. is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. That suit was instituted by the respondent herein for a declaration that a passage leading to the devastanam in PeriaDalam belongs to it and also for an injunction. That suit was resisted by the petitioner herein on several grounds which need not be noticed in detail for vurroses~ of the Present civil revision petition. Suffice it to. save that the learned District Munsif. Tiruvallur. on a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence. dismissed the suit instituted by the respondent on 30-7-1973 apply vieved by that. the respondent preferred an appeal. in A. S. No. 178 of 1973 to Sub-Court, Kancheepuram In order to contest the appeal. the Petitioner had engraved one Thiru C. M. Palaniraiakuniar as counsel. This appeal A. S. No. 178 of 1973 filed by the respondent herein before the Sub Court. Kancheepuram was later transferred to the file ...
Tag this Judgment!Chithiraivadivu Ammal Vs. Dr. Moses T. Sundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ334
ORDERM. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. In this case the revision petitioner is the landlady who has filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 123 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirunelveli for eviction of the tenant, who is a medical practitioner on the ground of wilful default in the payment of, arrears of rent for 11 months between September, 1976 and July, 1977 to the tune of Rs. 705 deducting Rs. 10 paid in excess for August, 1976. The contention of the landlady before the Rent Controller was that the tenant is a chronic wilful defaulter in the payment of rent and that he has committed wilful default as mentioned above in the payment of 11 months rent.2. The plea of the tenant is that the landlady had requested him to mate lumpsurh payment stating that if payments are made monthly they would be spent away and that even though the tenant was paying the rent in lumpsum in the past, the landlady was received the same without any demur.3. After a fulfledged enquiry, the Rent Controller found that the, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sudarsan Chit Fund, Represented by Its President, Branch Manager, Poll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ169
ORDERM. Fakkir Mohammed, J.1. The plaintiff-Sudarsan Chit Funds i& the petitioner and the petition has been filed against the judgment of the appellate Court (Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet), dated 12th December, 1977, by which the decree and' judgment of the trial Court dated 31st January, 1977, in O.S. No. 19 of 1976, dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, has been confirmed.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of the arrears of chit instalments under the promissory note executed by the defendants. The defendants pleaded, inter alia, that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit cannot be enforced against some of the defendants as they are entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Act. Separate issues were framed by the learned District Munsif and issue No. 3 reads whether the defendants are entitled to any Debt Relief Act benefits and additional issue was framed as to whether the suit is barred by time. On issue No. 3, the learned District Munsif gave a find...
Tag this Judgment!Ramco Cement Distribution Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC171(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J.1. These tax revision cases arise under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the C.S.T. Act, the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the T.N.G.S.T. Act, and the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as the T.N.A.S.T. Act. The matter relates to cement, the sale price and distribution of which are subject to the Cement Control Order, 1967, and the regulations made thereunder. The questions that arise for determination can be briefly categorised as follows : '(i) Whether the freight charges incurred by a dealer in the despatch of cement to the place of the customer could be deducted from the total turnover of the dealer under the C.S.T. Act, the T.N.G.S.T. Act and the T.N.A.S.T. Act (ii) Whether the packing charges being the cost of the packing materials used by the dealer in packing cement for being delivered to his customers could be properly excluded from his total turnover for the assessm...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vadivel Mudaliar and Sons and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC189(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These two tax cases arise under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Although the assessees in the two cases are different, the problem raised in these appeals from the Board's common order is similar. Indeed, the Board had dealt with both these cases as raising the same issues. 2. The point arises out of a claim for deduction by the assessees for freight charges which were included in their turnover. Both the assessees carry on business in minerals. They sell the minerals to their customers fixing the price ex mine, but undertake to transport the minerals to the particular destination which is pointed out by the customers concerned. The assessees claimed that they were entitled to deduct the cost of freight from the total turnover, in accordance with the provisions of rule 6(c)(i) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. This rule provides that freight, when specified and charged for by the dealer separately, without including the freight in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Children's Choice represented by Its Partner Mr. Lakshmichand Shamjee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ411
ORDERT.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondents-landlords filed the petition for eviction in respect of two nonresidential shops under Section 10(3)(c) of Act XVIII of 1960, for additional accommodation. The petitioner-tenant contended that the petition under Section 10(3)(c) is not maintainable since the premises constitute a separate building and therefore, the application should have been filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The tenant further contended that as per the terms of the contract of lease he is entitled to a renewal of the lease for four years and that the application for eviction is premature. Lastly, it was contended that in any event the requirement was not bona fide. The Rent Controller rejected the contentions of the tenant and ordered eviction. On appeal, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction and the tenant has come on revision.2. Three points were raised before this Court by the tenant and I shall consid...
Tag this Judgment!Gnanasoundarapandian Vs. Thomas Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ454
V. Sethuraman, J.1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 29 of 1978 in the Court of the District Munsif of Thiruvaiyaru. He has been unsuccessful throughout. The suit properties measuring 9.28 acres are situate in Keeraikollai Vattam within the Municipal limits of Thanjavur Town. It is not in dispute that these properties belong to the plaintiff. He and his brother executed a mortgage over those and other properties in favour of one Ramanathan Chettiar of Karaikudi on 6th July, 1967, as security for a loan of Rs. 55,000. The mortgagee assigned his interest by a registered assignment dated 2nd September, 1972, in favour of defendants 1 and 2, who are husband and wife respectively. The plaintiff's case was that on the same day, he entered into an oral arrangement by which the defendants were to be in possession of the suit properties for a period of three years, so that the income from the properties could be adjusted against the loan. After the said period of t...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Narayanan and ors. Vs. S. Gopinathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1611
ORDER1. Cr.M.P. 4496 of 1978 - This is a petition filed under S. 482 Crl.P.C. by the accused in C.C. 23771 of 1978 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras to call for the records in that case and quash the proceedings. 2. According to the private complaint filed by the complainant, who is the respondent in this petition, he is a shareholder in the India Cements Ltd. and accused 1 to 5, who are petitioner 1 to 5 herein, are the directors of the said public limited company which is having its registered office at Dhun Buildings, No. 175/1 Mount Road, Madras 2. The sixth accused, who is the sixth petitioner herein, is the brother of the first accused and he is the General Manager of the factory of the said company at Sankaranagar, Talaiyuthu, Tirunelveli. The seventh accused, who is the seventh petitioner herein, is the Secretary of the said company. According to the complaint, accused 1 to 7 have entered into a conspiracy at Madras to defraud the funds of...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Rudrappan and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: [1984]147ITR204(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessees are a firm of cotton merchants in Coimbatore. They purchase raw cotton or kappas, gin them, in their factory and sell the out-turn of cotton and cotton seeds. At any given moment of time, their factory and godowns will be filled with stocks of kappas, cotton seeds and cotton in various stages of manufacture. The stocks would be held either loose or in bales, bags and the like. The assessees had overdraft and key-loan facilities with a nationalised bank. The bank used to advance key-loans and open loans, on the security of the assessees' stocks of kappas, lint and cotton seeds. The assessees used to declare to the bank their stock of pledged goods on the basis of which the bank used to advance loans from time to time. The assessees' declarations of stocks were supposed to be verified by the inspecting staff of the bank. But it never was claimed by the bank that their verification was hundred per cent. accurate. It was stated, for instance, that wher...
Tag this Judgment!C. Tarachand Vs. the Tahsildar, Fort, Tondiarpet Taluk, Madras and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC324(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J. 1. The petitioner had registered himself as a non-resident dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In respect of sales effected during the calendar years 1973 and 1974, the petitioner filed his returns with the second respondent and the turnover returned were fully accepted by the second respondent. Since the petitioner did not pay the taxes due on returns within time, the second respondent levied penalties of Rs. 4,833 for the calendar year 1973 and Rs. 450 for the calendar year 1974 under section 36(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Appeals, Bombay, against the aforesaid levies, contending inter alia that the two levies could not be justified and section 36(3) of the Act was ultra vires the State Legislature of the State of Maharashtra. While passing orders on appeal, the said Assistant Commissioner enhanced the levy for the year 1973 to Rs. 5,388.07 and confirmed t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »