Chennai Court March 1981 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sri Ramanathan Farms Private Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC147(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. Sri Ramanathan Farms Private Limited, dealers in gypsum, was originally assessed for the assessment year 1962-63 on a turnover of Rs. 6,43,745.64 under the Central Sales Tax Act. On the ground that certain turnover has escaped assessment, reassessment proceedings were initiated. Finding that the sales effected by the assessee of gypsum to M/s. Mysore Iron and Steel Limited, Bhadravati, was on f.o.r. contract basis and that the sale price included the freight but mistakenly omitted to include the turnover relating to freight in the taxable turnover, the assessing officer revised the turnover including a turnover of Rs. 99,964.25 which represented the freight value in the price. Having failed in the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal however held that the freight paid on the goods by the purchasing firm to the railway out of the amount payable as sale price does not form part of the sal...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. S. Ramal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)16; [1982]135ITR292(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. Certain villagers in Mitratti village and Kattampatti village in Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District, sold their lands to the assessee with an option to repurchase. The lands contained deposits of gypsum. The sales were under registered conveyances. The option to repurchase was by separate agreements. After the purchase of the lands, the assessee entered into an agreement with her husband. Under this agreement, the husband was to do the mining operation in those lands after obtaining the requisite mining licence. The consideration under this agreement was that the husband should pay to the assessee a royalty at the rate of Rs. 2 per ton of gypsum won and Re. 1 per ton as and towards the cost of land, compensation for damages caused to land and the like. The dues payable to the Government on account of mining operations were also to be paid by the husband. 2. The assessee's husband began mining operations in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 19...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishna Rice Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: [1987]163ITR129(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The question referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in this reference reads as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in uphlding the order of the commissioner of Income-tax ?' 2. The question does not indicate what the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax was, on what basis the Tribunal upheld it as correct, and what was nature of the controversy raised by the assessee on it. A perusal of the sated case, however, tell us what the question is all about, a mercy for which we must be thankful. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on A business of its own. It also indulged in a joint venture in sugar in association with certain other firms. While returning its income for 1969-70, the assessee displayed therein its share income from the joint venture. The Income-tax Officer accepted the return as he found it, and made an assessment on the basis of the return, charging to tax the total in...
Tag this Judgment!C. Manuel Vs. Management of Needle Industries (India) Ltd. Keeti, Nilg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: (1981)IILLJ102Mad
1. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 2-7-1977 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, the 2nd respondent herein, in I.D. No. 44 of 1977, Certain admitted facts have got to be kept in mind to adjudicate upon the question raised in this writ petition. The petitioner, herein after referred to as 'the workman' was employed by the 1st respondent herein hereinafter referred to as 'the management.' 2. In May, 1973, there were certain disciplinary proceedings initiated by the management against the workman and ultimately in August, 1973, the workman was exonerated of the charges levelled against him by the management. The workman, through his union, is stated to have demanded employment. In the present writ proceedings, we are not very much concerned with these happenings. On 1-10-1973 the management terminated the services of the workman relying upon the terms and conditions of the appointment in that workman failed to attend duty conti...
Tag this Judgment!Gangabai and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: [1981]48STC508(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. One Gangaram Singh was carrying on business in sweets and other eatables in Madurai during the assessment year 1969-70. He died on 28th July, 1971. The business was continued by the widow as proprietrix. The original return for the assessment year 1969-70 was filed by the deceased and even the assessment order was made on 25th November, 1970, during his lifetime. On 29th July, 1974, there was an inspection of the place of business and also the premises No. 9/1, Subramaniapuram, Madurai, where the deceased lived, and certain anamath accounts pertaining to the business were recovered. After issuing notice under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, a revised assessment under that provision was made with reference to the materials available in the anamath accounts in respect of three assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. In this case we are concerned only with the assessment year 1969-70. The assessing officer held that the anamath accounts re...
Tag this Judgment!R. Saravanan Vs. Vedaranyaswaraswami Devastanam, Vellalar Koil and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad396; (1982)2MLJ290
1. The plaintiff, who could not succeed in either of the courts below, has come up by way of second appeal. The suit O. S. No. 338 of 1975 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Mayuram, was one for a permanent Injunction contending that a bare right to pluck cocoanuts would amount to a lease, and, so long as the lease is subsisting between the parties, he would be entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and therefore, he could not be evicted nor could his enjoyment be disturbed. In as much as there is interference with his enjoyment by the first defendant Devasthanam, it had become necessary to file the suit. In defence, it was contended that a bare right to pluck cocoanuts would not amount to lease but a licence. This defence prevailed with the courts below and hence the second appeal.2. What is urged before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is, having regard to the rulings in Venugopala Pillai v. Thirunavukkarasu, (1948) 2 Mad LJ ...
Tag this Judgment!V.A. Narayana Raja Vs. Ranganayaki Achi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ445
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Court below dismissing an application for setting aside the Court-auction-sale, filed under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, by the judgment-debtor who is the appellant herein.2. The appellant herein had executed a mortgage of two items of his properties in. the year 1963. A suit Was filed on the said mortgage in O.S. No. 166 of 1965 in the year 1965. There was a preliminary decree passed in that suit on 29th June, 1966 for Rs. 1,23,088.58 with subsequent interest thereon. Later, on 28th February, 1967, a final decree had been passed. An execution petition was filed in E.'P. No. 119 of 1967 in August, 1967, for realising the decree amount by sale of the hypotheca. The said execution petition was originally filed by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 166 of 196S-. As the decree-holder died later, his legal representatives were brought on record on 30th November, 1967, and on that day the execution petition was posted...
Tag this Judgment!The Corporation of Madurai Through the Executive Authority, Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ112
S. Mohan, J.1. The second appeal arises out of O.S. No. 897 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif of Madurai Town, in which the respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration that the notice for demolition issued by the appellant under Section 258 of the, Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 was illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from demolishing the Vinayakar temple. The suit property is Sakthi Vinayakar temple and the plaintiff-respondent is the President of the temple. The temple was in existence for more than the statutory period, having been founded by persons in the locality. Originally, the temple was covered by a thatched roof. It is not in any way a hindrance to the public, either to the pedestrians or to the vehicular traffic. The temple is worshipped by the entire public all these years, and daily pujas are being performed by the archaka appointed by the plaintiff. This temple is considered to be very sacred and powerful in the...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Gounder and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1054
ORDER1. This revision is filed against the order D/- 24-1-1980 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi in converting C.C. No. 336 of 1978 into P.R.C. No. 1 of 1980 for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and committing the petitioners to the Sessions Court to take their trial. 2. The facts of the case are as follows :- The petitioners were charge-sheeted under Sections 148, 448, 342, 426 and 506 (Part II) I.P.C. and under Section 7(1)(c) of the Civil Rights Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioners belong to Gounder community and the prosecution witnesses belong to Madari (Harijans) community. On 13-5-1978, the eleventh petitioner's uncle died at Udayakulam village. Due to misunderstandings, the Madaris (Harijans) refused to come to beat drums in connection with the death ceremony. Since the Madaris refused to beat the drums during the death ceremony, the petitioners, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with sticks and ca...
Tag this Judgment!Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. Associated Pharmaceutical Industries Priv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT23(Mad); (1981)2MLJ432
ORDEROffg. C.J.1. The respondent herein filed W.P. No. 558 of 1980, praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the appellants herein to give effect to the ruling of this Honourable Court in W.P. 100 of 1977 without insisting that any particular product could only be manufactured within a ceiling limit out of the quantity of restricted preparations. The respondent herein inter alia averred that he got licence in for L-1 for the year 1979-80 and was allowed to consume a quantity of alcohol not more than 25000 P.L. for the year 1979-80. Medicinal and toilet preparations containing alcohol for which the respondent herein got 25000 P.L. fell into categories. One is restricted and the other is unrestricted. Restricted preparations are those which are capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverages and defined and classified as such under the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. Other preparations are unrestricted preparations. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »