Chennai Court June 1981 Judgments
Perumal and anr. Vs. Kumbakonam Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1981
Reported in: 1981CriLJ1366
ORDER1. Accused 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 425 of 1977 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, who were charged and convicted under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(i) read with Section 2(1a)(a) and (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Act 37 of 1954) as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, have filed the above revision. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The petitioners are running a hotel under the name and style of 'Arya Bhavan' in Big St. Kumbakonam. Both the petitioners are partners in the said hotel. On 30-3-1977 at 12-10 p.m. the Food Inspector of Kumbakonam Municipality, who has been examined as P.W. 1, went to the hotel of the petitioners. The first petitioner (first accused) was looking after the business and the second petitioner (second accused) was not present. Finding five litres of rose ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Neela Kanta Sarma Vs. K. Govindarajulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad18
ORDER1. Insolvent is the applicant This application is filed under S. 21 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, for annulling the order of adjudication dated 6-10-1975 on the ground that the Petitioning creditor was a secured creditor, and when he had not complie with the requirements under S. 12(2) of the Act, the order of adjudication secured by him itself was without jurisdiction, and therefore the present application is maintainable. In the supporting affidavit, insolvent states as follows: He was adjudged an insolvent on 6-10-1975, on a Petition filed by the first respondent herein, who is a secured creditor. Under Section 12(2) of the Act, the Petitioning creditor shall state in his petition that he either relinquishes his security for the benefit of the creditors or give an estimate of the value of the security in which event alone, he would be entitled to present a petition under the 'Act and when the first respondent had not fulfilled any of the conditions mentioned in Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vijaya Productions (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1981
Reported in: [1985]152ITR616(Mad)
Bhlasubrahmanyan, J.1. The ITO purported to withdrawn the development rebate originally granted by hims to the assessee for the assessment year 1965-66 to 1967-68 and 1969-70, by an order passed by him under s. 155 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The validity of that order was questioned by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the order under s. 155 of the Act was invalid. When the Department demanded a case against the Tribunal's decision the Tribunal refused to state a case. In T.C.Ps. Nos. 404 to 411 of 1980 [CIT v. Vijaya Productions, P. LTD. (supra p. 613)], this court rejected the Department's request to direct the Tribunal to state a case. Thus final quietus has been given to the proceedings of the ITO under s. 155. 2. Acting under the impression that his order under s. 155 of the Act was valued, but it contained only an error the ITO purported to make a rectification in it by an order under s. 154 of the Act. The correctness of this order under s. 154 was also the subject-matter of an a...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevanlal (1929) Limited and ors. Vs. Controlling Authority Under the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ86Mad
Natarajan, J.1. These writ petitions have been clubbed together and posted before us for disposal by a common order since all of them relate to proceedings under the payment of Gratuity Act (No. 39 of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Most of the petitions have been filed by the Managements of various companies, while the rest of them have been filed by the employees. Since the facts differ in the various batches of cases, we shall deal separately with each batch, and wherever necessary, common questions of law will be dealt with collectively. 2. The first batch of cases, viz, Writ Petition Nos. 1551, to 1553, 1590 to 1598 and 635, of 1976, 2028, 2058, 2073, 2168 and 2170 to 2172 of 1978, 2451 to 2454 of 1978, 2469 to 2471 of 1978, 2570, 2662, to 2665 of 1978, 4136 of 1978, 26 and 614 of 1979, 1732, 1959, 2005 to 2008, 2085, 2122, 2134, 2135, 2171 to 2175, 2412, 2427, 3156 to 3158, 3163 to 3165, 3166, 3567, to 3571, 3972, 4022 to 4029, 4053 to 4058, 4252 to 4255, 4257 to 4259,...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruvallur Finance Corporation (Regd), Represented by Its Managing Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ214
ORDERS. Suryamurthy, J.1. This is a civil revision petition against an order of the Learned District Munsif, of Tiruvallur, dismissing a petition filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to amend the plaint, enabling the plaintiff to sue the defendant alternatively on the original cause of action.2. The suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,813-34 due on a promissory-note dated 16th October, 1975, executed by the defendant for the consideration of Rs. 2,500 alleged to have been received in cash. The promissory-note was intended to be executed originally by the defendant as well as his wife. Subsequently, the wife did not join in the execution of the promissory-note, though it would appear to have been written as if it was executed by both the defendant and his wife. Therefore, the defendant contended in his written statement that he cannot be made liable on the promissory-note 'as he agreed to be liable jointly along with other executant...
Tag this Judgment!Vyapuri Mudaliar Vs. Vallammi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ309
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. One Sivashanmugham obtained a mortgage decree against one Vyapuri Muda-liar. In execution of the final decree in the suit, the decree-holder filed an execution petition to bring the hypotheca to sale. Pending the execution petition, the decree-holder died leaving behind him surviving his wife and two daughters as his legal representatives. All the three legal representatives brought themselves on record in the execution proceedings and continued the execution petition. The amount due under the mortgage decree was Rs. 7,399.9. During the pendency of the execution petition, one of the daughters of the deceased decree-holder who was brought on record as one of the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder and who figured as the second petitioner in the execution petition, received a sum of Rs. 1,000 from the judgment-debtor and filed a memo, into Court that she was not pressing that execution petition. The executing Court, after recording the payme...
Tag this Judgment!Elgi Equipments (P.) Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-18-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC45(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. Elgi Equipments (P.) Ltd., Coimbatore (hereafter called the assessee), manufactures and deals in air-compressors. For the purpose of manufacture, the assessee purchases iron and steel goods, such as R.S. joists, angles, M.S. plates, flats and channels. These articles are declared goods within the meaning of section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and of item 4 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Accordingly, they are chargeable to sales tax at a single point, the point of taxation being their first sale in the State. All subsequent sales of such goods are, by definition, not liable to sales tax. The assessee purchases these iron and steel goods from dealers of such goods in the State. Sales by such dealers may or may not be first sales of such goods inside the State. If they happen to be first sales, then those sales would be taxable at that point. If the assessee were merely to resell those very goods, then such resales ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. WavIn India Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1981
Reported in: [1983]143ITR281(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. In these tax cases, we face the perennial problem of having to decide whether a given expenditure is capital or revenue in nature. The expenditure in question was made pursuant to a foreign collaboration agreement. There are no separate tests under the income-tax law for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure in so far as they arise out of a foreign collaboration agreement. However, the law reports carry a number of decisions of courts which have dealt with this aspect of the question, as if they demand special attention. Almost invariably the courts have held that the real character of the expenditure incurred under collaboration agreements will have to be examined and determined on a consideration of the particular terms of the collaboration agreement on hand. A study of the decided cases shows that the usual run of collaboration aids the Indian concerns. First comes the running of the factory. Provision for assignment of patents or provision fo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilnadu-iii Vs. Southern Sea Foods (P.) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)23; [1983]140ITR855(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. There are certain provisions in the I.T. Act, 1961, which cannot be explained from the purely fiscal point of view. Some of these provisions have been introduced in the statute in order to advance the policy of the State, and for non-fiscal considerations. Section 35B of the Act is one of such provisions. By means of this provision, Parliament hopes to promote and develop export markets for domestic companies and other resident persons and firms in India carrying on export trade and other activities abroad. Ordinarily, in the computation of a taxpayer's business income allowance for items of expenditure cannot exceed the actual amount of expenditure. But the relief granted under s. 35B for the express purpose of promoting export markets takes the form of granting to the assessee concerned what is termed as a 'weighted' allowance, that is to say, an allowance equivalent to the expenditure incurred plus one-third of that amount. Since, however, the object of the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Balu Chettiar and Brothers Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1981
Reported in: [1983]53STC265(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. In respect of the assessment year 1974-75 the petitioner submitted a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 93,06,464.21 and Rs. 77,85,805.86 respectively. The assessing officer determined the total turnover at Rs. 91,23,114.57 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 77,94,500. Though the assessing officer did not find any purchase or sale omission, on the ground that there are certain defects in the writing of accounts he rejected the accounts and added 2 1/2 per cent of the taxable turnover on account of probable omissions and defects in the accounts and added a sum of Rs. 59,189.28 on that account to the taxable turnover. He made a further addition of Rs. 6,500 on the taxable turnover. He made a further addition of Rs. 6,500 on edai cooli on purchase of groundnuts. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, while not accepting the contention of the assessee that the rejection of the accounts was not sustainable reduced the addition from Rs. 59,189.28 to Rs. 35,513.57 which ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »