Chennai Court June 1981 Judgments
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT370(Mad)
ORDER1. This petition is filed for issue of writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to grant the necessary exemption under Notification No. 119/75-C.E. dated 30-4-1975 (hereinafter called the notification) in respect of the job work done by it for the third respondent. 2. In the affidavit, it is stated that in respect of Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 while levying duty, certain exemptions are provided by the notification above referred to and as per notification only job work had been done by the petitioner and no new product having been manufactured by it, quite different from what had been supplied by third respondent, the petitioner is not liable to pay duty under Tariff Item No. 68 as claimed by respondents 1 and 2. First respondent by trade Notice No. 273/77 dated 30-11-1977 claimed that 'Fenaplast yarn' produced by twisting different types of duty paid filament and spun yarn material, is assessable to duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!T.G.K. Raman (Huf) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Mad)440; [1983]140ITR876(Mad)
1. In this group of tax case petitions, the assessee asks for a reference on two questions. They are:"1. Whether there was a partial partition in the assessee's family and whether the Tribunal was right in ruling out the partition pleaded, in the circumstances of the case2. Whether, failing a particle partition of the property in question, there was at least a gift of such property ?"2. The facts on which these questions have been mooted are vary few. The assessee is charged to tax both under the I.T. Act and under the W.T. Act in the status of an HUF. The karta of the family is one Raman. The family consist of the karta, his wife and there daughters. There is no male issue. There is no other male coparcener in the family. It was claimed before the department than on March 28, 1974, there was a partial partition in the family. It was said to be limited to a portion of the family properties. The family estate included, among other properties, 4,040 equity shares in a company called Engi...
Tag this Judgment!P. Venkatavaradan Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad5
ORDER1. The respondents to this revision remain ex parte. No counsel is before me to represent their side of the case. More is the pity because the question for decision raises a somewhat rare problem in execution. The Code does not offer ready answer to it. There is no direct precedent of this Court either.I heard Mr. M. Srinivasan for the petitioner. His advocacy was fair to the other side. This was only to be expected. All the same, at the end of the day, I could not help feeling that listening to an advocate argue both sides of a question is not quite the same thing as hearing advocates on both sides argue that question from rival positions. In such cases, we are often left with a sense of 'unfinished finish' about the hearing, if I may borrow a phrase from Galsworthy. I must, however, tale this revision as I find it, and deal with the point as best I may,2. Outwardly, the point looks simple. It has to do with a problem of set-off -in execution. The set-off is as between parties fi...
Tag this Judgment!K. Maranaicken Vs. R.S. Saradhambal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad183
1. In this revision under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 from the appellate order of the District Court, the question is whether an order of adjudication passed against a debtor is valid The act of insolvency alleged by the petitioning creditor against the debtor was that within three months of the presentation of the insolvency petition, the debtor has alienated the most valuable property of his to a third party. The debt due to the petitioning creditor was under a promissory note. It was for Rs. 5350. The debtor has realized Rs. 33,000 from the sale of some of his properties and Yet from out of the proceeds, he did not pay anything, towards the discharge of the debts.- It was alleged by the petitioning creditor that the sale by the debtor of his properties was with intent to defeat and delay his creditors. The debtor denied this act of insolvency. He asserted that the sale effected by him was bona fide, He said that out of the proceeds of sale, he had discharged certain debts to...
Tag this Judgment!Hazarimal Panaji Vs. Tilokchand Deepaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad175; (1982)2MLJ115
1. This is a revision from the Court of Small Causes, Madras. It arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 500. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant took the money from him undertaking to return it the same day, but did not do so. The plaint also referred to a promissorv note handed over by the defendant as security for the advance.2. The defendant opposed the suit. His plea in defence was that, the suit was not maintainable since the promissory n0te relied on by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped.3. The trial Judge accepted the defendant's plea and dismissed the suit. On application by the plaintiff for a new trial, the New Trial Bench held that although the promissory note was in sufficiently stamped, the suit was laid by the plaintiff, not on the Promissory note, but on the original cause of action. The Bench accordingly held that the trial Judge was in error in dismissing the suit as not maintainable. In that view, the Bench remitted the suit for a trial on the merits.4...
Tag this Judgment!N. Krishna Rao Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Mad367
ORDER1. A party to the arbitration has laid this application as against the other party for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of clause No. 37 of the agency agreement dated 8-3-1973 on the ground that by, the appointment of the arbitrator by the respondent, justice will not be done to the applicant. It is also alleged that originally, the respondent appointed one Sri V. T. Ramadoss as the arbitrator, but then on his transfer, one S P. Adarkar, Deputy L. P. G. Manager, 1. O. C. Bombay had been appointed instead as arbitrator. According to the applicant, the manner in which the respondent's men took possession of cylinders, will reveal that the respondent and naturally its employees are prejudiced against the applicant.2. This application is stoutly opposed on the ground that the applicant agreed to the terms contained in the agency agreement dated 8-3-1978, that Cl. 37 enabled the respondent to appoint its own arbitrator and that the allegation of prejudice is not well founded.3. It...
Tag this Judgment!T.N. Habib Khan Vs. Arogya Mary Shanthi Lucien
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad156
ORDER1. The petitioner herein was the respondent-tenant in H. R. C. o. 1584of 1980 on the file of the 14th Judge,Court of Small Causes, Madras. The above case was instituted by the land lady, daughter of one Henry Issidore, who is respondent in this revision, under Section 10(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter to be re5 ferred to as the Act) on the ground of 11 causing nuisance to the landlady as well 9 as the lodgers f the adjacent lodge. The 10 landlady has also filed two other cases in HRC Nos. 1585 and 1586 of 980 12 against the same tenant for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation and on the round of willful default respectively. Besides these three cases, there' are 9 other eviction petitions against the same tenant by the brother Mad and mother of the respondent herein. All. the eviction petitions are being tried together and common evidence is being led in HRC No. 1,584 of 1980. In the trial of these cases, ...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminathan and ors. Vs. Koonavalli and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad276
1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O. S. No. 308 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Palam, are the appellants herein. They filed the said suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in the suit property with past and future mesne profits. Their case was that the suit property formed part of the Joint family properties, that 1/4th share of the suit property was allotted under a family arrangement, dated 19-9-1953, to their father, that in pursuance of the said family arrangement, their father was receiving his share of the rent till his death in 1967, and that as it is no longer possible to enjoy the property in common, it should be divided by metes and bounds and their share allotted to them.2. Defendants 1 to 4 were the lessees and they merely filed a written statement setting out the terms of the lease in their favour. Defendants 5 and 6 alone contested the suit. Their case was that their father Palanimalai Pandaram and the plaintiffs, father Kandasami Pan...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv, Madras Vs. C.M. Kothari Cha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1981
Reported in: [1984]149ITR573(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee in this tax case is a charitable trust. It holds certain Government securities and shares from out of which income is derived. For some years past, the trust had not been applying any part of its income towards any of the charitable purposes of the trust. However, during the three accounting years relevant to the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71, the trust invested something more than 75 per cent, of its income in Government securities under the procedure prescribed under rule 17 of the I.T. Rules. Having done, so the trust claimed during these three assessment years that it was entitled to exemption from tax in respect to its entire income for these years. This ITO rejected this contention. The consequential assessments he made, however, were not uniform. In the assessment for 1968-69, for instance, having rejected the claim of the trust for the full exemption of the entire income, the ITO brought to assessment 75 per cent. of the total income, g...
Tag this Judgment!N. Chellappan Pillai and anr. Vs. A. Anthoni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad155
1. The above second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption and partition filed by the plaintiffs, who are the appellants herein. This suit was based on Ex. A-1, a copy of the othi and kushikkanom deed dated 32-12-1070 M. E. and Ex A-2, a copy of the Purakkadom deed dated 22-11-1088 M. E. 1070 M. E. corresponds to 1895 and 1088 to 1913 of the Gregorian Calendar. The first court passed a preliminary decree allowing the plaintiffs to redeem their 1/8th share on their depositing the proportionate mortgage and Purakkadom amount of Rs. 33.19 and granting them the relief to recover possession of their share from the defendants. In the appeal the learned Subordinate Judge of Nagarcoil held that the suit ought to have been filed before 1967, and that as it has been filed only on 2-1-1971 it was clearly barred by limitation. The result was that he dismissed the suit and, therefore, the unsuccessful plaintiffs came forward with the present appeal.2. The appeal originally came before Nainar Su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »