Chennai Court March 1981 Judgments
Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC58(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. For the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee returned a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,49,55,860.54 and Rs. 66,22,883.58 respectively. In the return, it had claimed exemption, among orders, of a turnover of Rs. 3,20,600 representing sale of old assets as not liable to tax on the ground that they are not dealers in such assets. This was accepted and after making a small addition, taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 66,41,195.64 by an assessment order dated 15th March, 1971. Subsequently to this order, the Supreme Court in its judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Burmah Shell : [1973]2SCR636 dated 10th October, 1972, held that the sale of such scraps by a dealer should be treated as transactions which are incidental or ancillary to the trade in spite of the fact that there was no profit-motive or that the dealer was not a dealer in such assets and that the turnover relating to the same is liable to be included in the taxable turnover. In the light of the Supreme C...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Goundar and ors. Vs. Thirumalai Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad57
1. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 in O. S. No. 598 of 1965 in the court of the Principal District Munsif of Erode are the appellants. The suit was one for redemption of Ex. B-2 'mortgage' and for recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiffs was that Ex. B.2 was a mortgage by conditional sale and that, therefore, they were entitled to redeem the mortgage. The case of the defendants was that Ex. B 2 constituted an absolute sale accompanied by an agreement for repurchase and, therefore, the suit for redemption would not lie.2. The trial Court decreed the suit and the matter was taken on appeal by the defendants. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and the matter came up to this court in S. A. No. 667 of 1969. (Karuppanna Goundar and 3 others v. Thirumalai Gounder and 3 others). By judgment and decree dated 7th Oct. 1971, Ismail, J. (as he then was) allowed the second appeal and remanded the first appeal for fresh disposal. The reason for the remand order was that o...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Tamil Nadu-ii, Madras Vs. R.M. Venkatachala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: [1984]147ITR746(Mad)
Balasubramanyan, J. 1. This tax reference comes to us from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by way of case stated under the E.D. Act, 1953. 2. One Ramaswami Chettiar (hereinafter called 'the deceased') was an undivided member of a Hindu Joint family governed by the Mitakshara law. The family consisted of two coparceners, the deceased and his only son. The family was possessed of a number of properties, both movable and immovable. One of the items was a residential house in a small village. In that house the deceased lived and died. The deceased had no separate properties of his own. An undivided half share in the family properties was the only property he could call his own when he breathed his last. 3. On the deceased's death, his son filed an estate duty account as the accountable person. In the proceedings that followed, there was little or no dispute on question of valuation. The principle value of all the joint family properties was determined at Rs. 1,06,854. In particular the v...
Tag this Judgment!Bright Son Jose Vs. Madurai Kamaraj University and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad79
Venugopal, J.1. The appellant was a student studying in the B. Sc. class in Scott Christian College, Nagarcoil affiliated to the Medurai Kamaraj University. On the last day of Fourth semester examination held on 14-5-1980 the appellant was caught red-handed by the invigilator while copying the answers from a hand-written script and he swallowed the same on detection by the invigilator. The invigilator made a contemporaneous report about the incident to the Chief Superintendent, University examinations, Scott Christian College centre, Nagarcoil and he, in turn, sent a report to the Controller of Examinations, Madurai Kamaraj University. The appellant was called upon to be present for an enquiry on 24-6-1980, at 11 a. m. for the alleged malpractice, before the Disciplinary Committee of the Syndicate. At the enquiry the appellant gave a statement denying the malpractice alleged against him and he further stated that it was all due to previous enmity between him and the invigilator. On a c...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Jabbar Vs. Abdul Muthaliff and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad12
1. This second appeal has been filed by the first defendant in 0. S. No. 64 of 1972 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai. The plaintiff filed the above suit for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of a rice mill known as 'Muthalif Rice Mill' and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. There are three defendants, who are the brothers of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff. his father, who had some lands and a house sold them and settled down in a village called Kulamangalam in or about 1941. He was not able to make both ends meet and the plaintiff left for Kualalampur in or about 1952. The case of the plaintiff was that between 1962 and 1966 he had sent about Rs. 24,000 and between 1966 and 1971 further amounts totalling Rs. 24000 and that the remittances were subject to the understanding that the moneys belonged to the plaintiff and that they had to be used for his benefit. It was stated by t...
Tag this Judgment!Melur Panchayat Union and anr. Vs. L. Sundararajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad278; (1982)1MLJ285
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs 3 and 4 in 0. S No. 419 of 1973 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai against the judgment and decree dated 25-10-1976 in the said suit dismissing the said suit Instituted under Sec. 92 C. P. C.2. It is unnecessary at this stage to dwell in detail the case that has been put forward by either side before the trial court. Because, it is sufficient for the purpose of this appeal if it is only said that the suit had been instituted by all the plaintiffs for changing the object of the trust that had been created by one Ananthanarayana Deek-shidar, for providing food to Byragis and Brahmins, into one of Educational institution, it was also opposed by the defendant in the trial court that inasmuch as the scope of See. 92 (17 (h) does not contemplate such a kind of transformation of the object of the trust into one something different from the object with which it had been initiated Or started by the founder, and what is more, if at...
Tag this Judgment!Ghansham Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)56; [1983]141ITR601(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This reference from the Income-tax appellate Tribunal raises the perennial question of capital versus revenue expenditure. We may clear the ground first by excluding from our consideration lines of inquiry on which the indications are that they are unnecessary for the purposes of the present case. We are not, for instance, asked to examine whether the expenditure in question of the expenditure going into the purchase by the assessee of a fixed capital asset. This is also not a case of an outlay for the acquisition of business as a whole nor even of the extension or substantial improvement of an existing business. The deduction claimed is in respect of a payment made by the assessee under the terms of a compromise decree. The compromise came about this way. The assessee was a partner in a partnership concern carrying on commission business and engaged in other sundry activities. With the death of one of the assessee's co-partners the firm dissolved. The dissoluti...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuchami Servai Vs. Balasubramanian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad281
1. The third defendant in 0. S. No. 896 of 1974 in the court of the Principal District Munsif of Pudukottai is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff, a minor represented by his mother and next friend filed a suit for declaration and injunction or in the alternative for possession, The plaintiff is the son of the first defendant, who was said to have been leading a wasteful life on 24-5-1973 the first defendant executed a release deed, marked as Ex. A. 2, in favour of the other members of the joint family of which his father was the Kartha and obtained the suit properties, towards his share in the family estate on the following day, i.e,, on 25-5-1973, he executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit properties. Briefly stated, under the terms of the settlements, the income from the suit properties was to be enjoyed by the plaintiff, his parents and also by other heir of his father. The properties were not to be alienated by the first defendan...
Tag this Judgment!T.S.G. Rajam Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Madras and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR959(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J. 1. The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Agrl I. T. Act (V of 1955). The authorities concerned wanted to include in. the total agricultural income of the petitions, the agricultural income from the extent of the lands settled by the petitioner in favour of one Kumari Vidya (a minor), the daughter of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she (the daughter) was given away in adoption to his (the petitioners) sister on May 16, 1971, and hence the income from the lands covered by the settlements deed could not be included in computing the total agricultural income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1976-77. This plea of the petitioner has not been accepted by the respondents and that has given a ground for the petitioner to mine this court to exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the orders passed by the respondents in this connection. The factum and validity of adoption have not been disputed by the respondents. If this is so, the said daughter went out of...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. Federation of Indian Bank Employees Union and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ123Mad
1. The plaintiff-Indian Bank, Madras is the applicant herein and respondents 1 and 2 are the Federation of the Indian Bank Employees Unions and the Indian Bank Employees Union. The reliefs claimed in this application are for passing an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from holding any meeting or staging any demonstration or resorting to any other similar form of direct action within the premises of the plaintiff Bank's Central office or any of its offices and branches in Tamil Nadu, and within a radius 50 meters of these places and obstructing directly or other wise officers, employees, members of the public, etc., from entering such places and preventing the officers, employees, etc., from attending to their normal duties and putting up hand-bills, placards, flags etc., by affixing them on the walls or in any other place in the buildings except in places which have been specifically allotted to the first defendant, and affixing posters, hand-bills and the like o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »