Chennai Court July 1981 Judgments
R. Natarajan Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR178(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This reference has been made by the Tribunal under Section 64(1) of the E.D. Act, raising the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief under Section 33(1)(n) of the Estate Duty Act should be restricted to the value of the portion of the property used by the deceased for her residence ?'2. The deceased, Ranganayaki Ammal, was the owner of a building at Jeremiah Road, Madras. She occupied 2/3rds portion thereof for her residence and the remaining 1/3rds of the property was let out. The contention raised before the Asst. Controller was that the exemption under Section 33(1)(n) of the Act was allowable to the full extent of Rs. 1,00,000. The Asst. Controlled took the view that the relief was restricted to the proportionate value of the portion under the occupation of the deceased. This view of the Asst. Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Controller. The executor appointed under...
Tag this Judgment!ivor Fernandez Vs. Management of Stanes Motors (Southern India) Ltd. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)IILLJ155Mad; (1982)1MLJ406a
1. The petitioner in the writ petition claiming himself to be a workman within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), raised a dispute over his non-employment by the first respondent. The dispute was referred to the second respondent and the matter was taken up for adjudication by the second respondent in I.D. No. 55 of 1977. Apart from justifying the non-employment of the petitioner on other grounds, the first respondent put forth a contention that the petitioner would not come within the meaning of 'workman' under S. 2(s) of the Act, because he was employed at the relevant point of time in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem and thus the petitioner would be excluded from the definition of 'workman'. 2. The second respondent went into the question as to whether the petitioner would come within the meaning of 'workmen' under S. 2(s) of the Act and on an assessment of the materials placed before him...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, Represented by the Divi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ370Mad
1. The General Manager, Southern Railway an employer within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the petitioner. The 1st respondent is the workman within the meaning of the Act. The 1st respondent was in the services of the petitioner and ultimately he retired on the afternoon of 18-8-1973. Earlier he had been agitating for refixat on of seniority. But the order of refixing the seniority came to be passed only on 19-11-1975 and it was given effect to from (on) 22-5-1966. On 27-11-1975 an order was passed refixing the scale of pay of the 1st respondent on the basis of the refixation of the seniority. It is true that in these two orders it is stated that the arrears of salary on the basis of refixation of seniority and refixation of scale of pay would not be paid. However, armed with these two orders, the 1st respondent approached the second respondent under S. 33C(2) of the Act for computation of the benefits of arrears of salary togeth...
Tag this Judgment!ivor Fernandez Vs. the Management of Stanes Motors (Southern India) Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ406
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition claiming himself to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), raised a dispute over his non-employment by the first respondent. The dispute was referred to the second respondent and the matter was taken up for adjudication by the second respondent in I.D. No. 55 of 1977. Apart from justifying the non-employment of the petitioner on other grounds, the first respondent put forth a contention that the petitioner would not come within the meaning of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act, because he was employed at the relevant point of time in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem and thus the petitioner would be excluded from the definition of 'workman'.2. The second respondent went into the question as to whether the petitioner would come within the meaning of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act and on an as...
Tag this Judgment!Food Inspector, Pondicherry Vs. T.S. Subramania Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1140
1. This is an appeal by the State of Pondicherry against the order of acquittal of the accused by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pondicherry for offences under Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. The prosecution case is the first accused is in-charge of the hotel Messrs. Mathru Cafe. The second accused is the licencee of the said hotel. P.W. 1, the Food Inspector, inspected the said hotel on 23-12-1974, at about 4-15 a.m. The first accused was running the business at that time. After disclosing his identity, P.W. 1 purchased sample of rose milk and paid the cost of Rs. 3.75 and obtained a receipt. After observing the formalities, P.W. 1 sent one sample to the public analyst on 24-12-1974. The report of the Public Analyst states that the rose milk is deficient in solids not fat to the extent of at least 56 per cent and is also deficient in fat to the extent of 48 per cent and also contains non-permitted basic coal tar dye Rhodamine B. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Hemalatha Textiles Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC241(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. M/s. Hemalatha Textiles Limited is an incorporated company. Its registered office is in Madras City. But the textile mill, the running of which was one of its objects, was located in Pedakkani in Guntur District of the State of Andhra Pradesh. In 1970-71, the assessee-company entered into a contract with a firm of exporters in Madras called Indo-Burma Trading Corporation, for the sale of 1,000 bales of cotton yarn of the aggregate value of Rs. 7,87,508. The price fixed was f.o.b. Madras. Both the parties knew that this transaction in yarn was for the purpose of export to Burma. 2. When the Exemption was claimed by the assessee it was claimed on the footing that this sales turnover represented sales in the course of export outside the territory of India. 3. The assessee claimed in its relevant sales tax assessment that this sale to the Indo-Burma Corporation was not a sale within the State and cannot be brought to charge under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1981
Reported in: [1984]56STC8(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The only question in this sales tax revision is whether a turnover of Rs. 4,29,642.18 is entitled to exemption from the Central Sales Tax Act on the score that the sales comprised therein were sales in the course of export and hence not subject to tax under that Act. 2. The assessee is a company called Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. It has a factory engaged in the manufacture of paper and allied products in Pallipalayam, Erode, in the State of Tamil Nadu. Its registered office is also at Pallipalayam, Erode. A firm of exporters called International Markets, New Delhi, were acting as agents of certain commercial houses in Iran. During the relevant year this firm entered into as many as six transactions with the assessee-company under which the assessee-company was to sell paper at prices f.o.b. Madras but deliverable at Cochin Port for being carried by sea to parties in Iran. The goods were actually transported from the assessee's factory to Cochin Port in Kera...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. the South Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1981
Reported in: [1982]50STC106(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The question in this revision by the State Government is whether mill-made handkerchiefs sold by the assessee in this case are exempt from sales tax under section 8 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act. 2. Item 4 of the Third Schedule exempts from taxation cotton fabrics, woollen fabrics and rayon or artificial silk fabrics, as defined in items 19, 21 and 22, respectively of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944). Item 19 defines 'cotton fabrics' as all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton and includes dhoties, sarees, chadders, bed-sheets, bed-spreads, counterpanes, table-cloths, embroidery in the pieces, in strips or in motifs, and fabrics impregnated or coated with preparation of cellulose derivatives or of other artificial plastic materials. The definition includes certain certain fabrics, the contents of which are not pu...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan and anr. Vs. Krishnamurthi and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad101; (1982)1MLJ4
1. The question that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition is whether a civil Court has jurisdiction under S. 151 C.P. C., to stay a suit, or proceeding. involving a decision as to whether a particular person is a cultivating tenant or not, pending before it, on the ground that the tenant had applied for registration of his tenancy under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, (Act 10 of 1969) even if it is satisfied that such stay of the proceedings may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the court. The civil revision petition came up for hearing before Sengottuvelan. J. who referred this matter for a consideration by the Division Bench in view of the importance of the matter and also on the ground that the decision of Sathiadev, J. in C. R. P. No. 3084 of 1978, Thangavelu v. Kamalanathan, is in conflict with the decision of Suryamurthy, J. in Rayappan v. Patheeswaraswami Devasthanam, reported in (1978) ...
Tag this Judgment!Dasappa Chettiar Vs. S.R. Venkatarama Chettiar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad218
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petition against an order of the learned principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, rejecting the objections of the judgment debtor, against whom R, E. P. No. I of 1981 in 0. S. No. 411 of 1975, on the file of the Sub Court Salem had been filed for sale of the hypotheca. The judgment-debtor who is the revision petitioner herein contended that by an order dated 31-10-1980, the Revenue Divisional Officer. Salem had declared that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and had directed the Special Tahsildar (DR) Salem, to issue a redemption certificate to him. that thereby the debt had been wiped out and that, therefore, the execution against him is not maintainable. This contention of the judgment-debtor having been overruled by the executing court, this revision has been preferred,2. The mortgage decree against the judgment-debtor was obtained on 30-111979. Thereafter the judgment-debtor filed an application before the Special Tahsildar (Deb...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »