Chennai Court August 1981 Judgments
K.S. Sekaran Vs. the Director of Handloom and Textiles, Madras and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad275
Gokulakrishnan, Offg. C.J.1. The appellant filed a writ petition for the issue of a certiorari calling for the records of the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras 1, in Rc.No. 65240/80/G3/7 dated 31-12-1980, and for quashing the same, There is a further prayer to the effect that this court must direct the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras to hold fresh elections to the 8th respondent society in the affidavit filed in support of W. M. P. 2231 and 2232 of 1981, the appellant herein has alleged that the order of the first respondent herein is motivated due to influence exercised by the party in power, that any revision or appeal preferred to the 9th respondent State Government will result in delay and that in the meantime the arbitrary illegal and motivated order will work itself out. Nainar Sundaram J. who disposed of the writ petition, observed that there is an alternative remedy available for the appellant herein under Sec. 97 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. N. Palaniappa Gounder by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1981
Reported in: (1983)31CTR(Mad)7; [1983]143ITR343(Mad)
Tax Case No.133 of 1976JUDGEMENTBALASUBRAHMANYAN J. - In this reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act the question of law propounded for our decision is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 47,203 which represented the assessees share of the difference between the book value and the market value of the net assets of the firm as on June 30, 1960, is assessable as capital gains under section 12B(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'The assessee was one among four equal partners in a partnership fir called 'V. K. N. Palaniappa & Co.' In the year 1960, the assessee retired from the firm with the consent of the other partners. Under the terms of the assessees retirement from the firm, which were to be valued as on June 30, 1960, and one-fourth share of the net value of the assets referable to the assessees share should be paid over to him. Working on this basis the total assets of the firm ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajendra Mills Limited Vs. the Regional Commissioner, Employees Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ352Mad
1. Though in the petition, petitioner had taken more than one point covering the periods of default, the petitioner would stress on the failure of the respondent to consider about the plea of power cut which prevented prompt remittance of the amounts under the provisions of Central Act 19 of 1952. Mr. E. S. Govindan, counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the order is a non-speaking order and none of the two reasons given has been considered, and it has proceeded more in a mechanical manner rather than endeavour to appreciate the hardship faced by the petitioner in prompt remittance, for which it has been reputed since 1952. It is claimed that right from 1952 onwards, till 1975 petitioner has been regularly remitting Provident Fund contributions without default, and it is only since March 1975, it experienced financial difficulties, which cropped up due to crisis in the textile industry with the added factor of power cut. In its representations dated 7-4-1977, it has furnished ...
Tag this Judgment!Fifth Income-tax Officer Vs. R. Wilson.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1981
Reported in: [1982]2ITD418(Mad); (1983)16TTJ(Mad)405
ORDERPer Shri T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the AAC granting deduction under Section 80TT of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act).2. The assessee is an individual who deposited a sum of Rs. 25 on 9-12-1975, with the Tanjore Permanent Bank Ltd. That bank which was celebrating its Platinum Jubilee, conducted a prize scheme in respect of the deposits received on the occasion. At the second draw held on 19-6-1976, the assessee won the first prize of Rs. 10,000. While adding this amount to the total income for the assessment year 1977-78, corresponding to the previous year ended 31-3-1977, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80TT treating the amount as a winning from a lottery. The ITO was of the view that it could not be treated as a lottery because it was received by accident, and not by design. He, therefore, treated the amount as a casual and non-recurring receipt, exempt to the extent of Rs. 1,000 under Section...
Tag this Judgment!D. Shanthalakshmi and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad232; (1983)IIMLJ7
Gokulakrishnan, Offg.C.J.1. By Tamil Nadu Act 9 of 1979, the State Government have introduced amendment to certain of the provisions of the Madras Prohibition Act (Act X of 1937). In these writ petitions, which form a batch the vires of the amended provisions in Ss. 14 (1, 14 (2), 14 (4) and 14 - A of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. For a better understanding of the case and the facts, we give below the impugned sections both before and after the amendment :- As it stood before amendment. S. 14 (1) When the offender is convicted or when the person charged with an offence against this Act is acquitted, but the Court decided that anything is liable to confiscation, such confiscation may be ordered by the Court. S. 14 (2). Where during the trial of a case for an offence against this Act, the Court decides that anything is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1), the court may, after hearing the person, if any, claiming any right thereto and the evidence, if any, ...
Tag this Judgment!St. Antony's Timber Depot Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC193(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The petitioner is a firm by name St. Antony's Timber Depot, Coonoor. It is a sales tax assessee. In the year 1975-76, the assessee purchased from the Government Timber Depots timber of the value of Rs. 67,917.33. The assessee sold the timber subsequently to various parties. This amount is estimated to be Rs. 86,255. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer considered that the sales amounting to Rs. 86,255 were chargeable to sales tax as first sales under item 84 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. He made an assessment accordingly. This assessment was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and later by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The assessee is now before us in revision. 2. The contention in this revision is that the assessee's sale of timber is not its first sale in the State, but only its second sale. It is hence urged that entry 84 excludes this sale from single point levy. 3. The Tribunal did not accept t...
Tag this Judgment!Maricar Motors Ltd. and ors. Vs. Neelambal Ramaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad65
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the owner and insurer of the vehicle which was involved in an accident against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore (East) at Erode in M. C. O. P. No. 12 of 1971 awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000 (Rs. fifty thousand only) to the first respondent herein for the death of her son, Kulasekaran. The first respondent herein has filed a memorandum of cross-objections claiming a further compensation of Rupees 20,000.2. On 12-7-1970, one Kulasekaran, the son of the first respondent herein aged about 23 years, studying in the final year B. E. in the Government Engineering College at Karupuur was driving a new Ambassador car which had not been registered, from Bhavani to Guruvareddiyur on the Bhavani-Mettur road. In the opposite direction a convoy of forty Ambassador cars was proceeding from Calcutta to Kerala. At about 12.15 P.M. there was a collision between the car driven by Kulasekaran and the 8th car in the conv...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurangan Vs. Sarangapani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad372; (1982)1MLJ143
1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S No. 69 of 1970 in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. He filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant and subsequently the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant are null and void. The suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's ancestors. The plaintiff's father got them under a partition-dated 31-1-1922, marked as Ex. A-f. The plaintiff's father, who is not a party to the suit, executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant on 6-1-1969, marked as Ex. A-12. The first defendant is none other than the brother-in-law of the plaintiff. In other words, the first defendant has married the plaintiff's sister. The sale deed was thus executed by the plaintiff's father in favour of his son-in-law. The first defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that his f...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanasundaram Udayar Vs. Pazhaniayya Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad86
Ramanujam, J.1. This second appeal has been posted before us on an order of reference dated 18-3-1981 by Maeswaran J. on the ground that there is a conflict of opinion as between two decisions of this Court Ganesan v. Madurai Achair, (1978) 91 MLW 6 (N. S. Ramaswami J.), on the one hand and Thangavelu Naicker v. Muthukumara Chettiar, : (1979)2MLJ369 (V. Balasubrahmanyan J.) on the other, on the scope of S. 23 of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1971, hereinafter referred to as the `Act'. However, after going through the said decisions we are of the view that there is actually no conflict between the views expressed by N. S. Ramaswami J. in Ganesan v. Madurai Achari, (1978) 91 MLW 6 and Balasubrahmanyan J. in Thangavelu Naicker v. Muthukumara Chettiar, : (1979)2MLJ369 . We would like to refer to the legal position as enunciated in the said two decisions.2. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of from the appellant-defendant. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that he wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sreenivas and Co. and anr. Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1981
Reported in: [1983]52STC91(Mad)
ORDERSathiadev, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed to quash the orders of the first respondent dated 30th November, 1978, issuing a demand notice for payment of the balance of tax of Rs. 1,38,113 and Rs. 1,88,271 respectively, by way of provisional assessment for the six months period from 1st April, 1978, to 30th September, 1978. 2. The petitioners state that they are tanners and exporters of tanned hides and skins and they purchases raw hides and skins from various centres, and they are processed in the petitioners' tannery at Madhavaram. Under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the Act), raw hides and skins are taxable at the point of last purchase in the State under item 7(a) of the Second Schedule read with section 4, whereas dressed hides and skins are taxable at the point of first sale in the State under item 7(b) of the Second Schedule read with section 4. 3. It is stated that for the period 1st April, 1978, to 30th September, 1978, returns were...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »