Chennai Court September 1981 Judgments
National Textile Workers' Union Vs. Ramakrishnan and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)ILLJ203Mad
V. Ramaswamy, J.1. This appeal is filed by the applicant in company application No. 883 of 1981 which was one of the three applications filed by three different unions to implead themselves as parties in Company Petition No. 30 of 1981. The company Petition has been filed for winding up a private limited company under S. 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act. The learned Judge dismissed the applications holding that the applicants have no locus standi to oppose the winding up as such and that, therefore, they cannot be impleaded as parties in the petition. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the unions represent a large body of workers of the company, that there is a grave threat to their livelihood being affected in case the winding up is ordered and that in order to protect their interests they should be impleaded as parties. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Bhalchandra Dharm...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ramanujam Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govern ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad261
1. The petitioner has prayed for a certiorarified Mandamus for quashing the G. O. Ms. No. 128 Food and Cooperation dated 24-2-1981, and to direct the respondents to fix the quota sugar for the petitioner's card as per law.2. The petitioner is a holder of a family card and his declared income is Rs. 500 per month. He states as follows Till February 1981, the petitioner was eligible and was receiving 5 kilograms of sugar every month on his ration and for his family at the control rate of Rupees then, every card holder the said quantity every7.50 per kg.3. The jaggery which has all along been a cheaper substitute, is now being sold at Rs. 4.50 per kg, whereas levy sugar costs Rs. 3.50 per kg. As the impugned G. O, which has come into force on 1-3-1981, caused hardship to the petitioner and other citizens, he had perforce to seek remedy in this court by invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution.4. He claimed that Government has created classification on the basis of income, which has no nexus ...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Bank Vs. B.D. Kothandapani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ367
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The question in the revision is whether the application for execution filed by the petitioner was or was not barred by limitation. The decree was a mortgage decree. The final decree was passed on 1st September, 1960. The petition for excuting the decree was filed by the petitioner on 16th December, 1973. It may, however, be observed that the decree-holder was restrained from executing the decree by an order of injunction passed on 7th September, 1965 in an interlocutory proceeding in another suit. That order of injunction was in force till 19th August 1969, when the injunction stood vacated with the dismissal of the relevant main suit itself.2. Before the executing Court the decree-holder in the present case submitted that the period during which the injunction in the other suit was in force, namely from 7th September, 1965 to 19th August, 1969, must be excluded in computing the period of limitation of twelve years applicable to the execution petition. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Smt Saroj GoenkA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1981
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Mad)92; [1983]140ITR88(Mad)
SETHURAMAN J. - In this case arising under the I.T. Act, 1961, the following question has been referred:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the losses diamonds could be said to be personal effects held by the assessee for here personal use and that, therefore, no capital gains tax can be levied on the sale thereof ?'The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. The assessee had sold loses diamonds of the value of Rs. 40,000 held by her for her personal use from a period prior to 1954. In the absence of any information regarding the original cost or the fair market value as on January 1, 1954, the ITO had estimated the value and determined the capital gains at Rs. 28,000. The assessee had claimed before the ITO that no capital gains tax was chargeable on the above sum of Rs. 28,000 because the diamonds sold by the assessee were here movable property held by the here for personal use. The ITO rejected the said claim. On appeal, the AAC, confirmed the order of the ITO....
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Vs. Tractors and Equipment Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: [1982]133ITR147(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. In all these cases there is one common question of law that has been referred and in T. C. No. 971/77 there re two other questions dealing with a different point. 2. It is not in dispute that as far as the common question is concerned, the facts in the case of all these assessees are identical. That question, as referred in T. C. 971/77, runs as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount contributed by the assessee to M/s. Simpson & General Finance Co. Ltd., towards the expenditure incurred on black topping of the approach road in the Sembiam Estate, in which the assessee's factory is located, was a revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1969-70 ?' 3. Except for some verbal change, the question in the other cases being identical, need not be reproduced. 4. The assessees run their factories in what is called the Sembiam Estate, which is the property of a company called the Simp...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. Rukmani Mills Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)27CTR(Mad)135; [1982]133ITR155(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The following question has been referred by the Tribunal under s, 256(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held by the Tribunal that the guarantee commission paid of Rs. 14,003 in acquiring certain machinery in the assessee's case and for stay of tax is an admissible deduction under section 37 of the Income-tax At, 1961, for the assessment year 1970-7 ?'2. The question, in so far as it refers to 'for stay of tax', is not happily worded. A sum of Rs. 14,003 was paid as guarantee commission to the Bank of Madura. The break-up of the amount for the several items are as follows : Rs.(1) For accepting usance bills underIndustries Development Bank of India Scheme(IDBI) for purchase for four numbers ofDoubling Frames ...... 6,078.74(2) For accepting usance bills under IndustrialDevelopment Bank of India Scheme (IDBI) forpurchase of drafting conversion materials forRing Frames ....... 6,679.72(3) For givin...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii Vs. S.A.P. Annamalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)356; [1983]141ITR578(Mad)
Sethuraman, J. 1. The following question has been referred to us under s. 27(1) of the W.T. Act : 'Whether the provisions of section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act could not be invoked to apply the amended provisions of section 5(1)(viii) of the said Act on the ground that such amended provisions of section 5(1)(viii) involve a debatable question of law ?' 2. The assessee owned jewellery, valued at different figures. as on the valuation dates relevant for the assessment years 1962-63 to 1968-69. These amounts were included in the original wealth-tax assessment and, on a representation filed by the assessee on November 11, 1970, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, following a decision of the Supreme Court in CWT V. Arundhati Balkrishna : [1970]77ITR505(SC) , deleted the inclusion of the value of the jewellery in the respective assessments for the years 1962-63 to 1968-69. 3. Section 5(1)(viii) was amended with retrospective effect by s. 32 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971, excluding jewellery fro...
Tag this Judgment!Soft Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd., Madurai Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: 1982(10)ELT119(Mad)
1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 13,01,628.15, being the amount paid by it over and above ten per cent ad valorem duty in respect of its products Coca Cola and Fanta declared by them from 17-3-1976 to 25-7-1976, as per the chart marked annexure A to the petition. The petitioner has approached the court under the following circumstances. The petitioner was the authorised bottler of Coca Cola Export Corporation for bottling Coca Cola and Fanta. The formulae for the said two soft drinks were supplied by Coca Cola Export Corporation and the petitioner used to manufacture Coca Cola and Fanta and market them. There is no dispute now, the manufacture by the petitioner of the above products was not by the use of blended flavouring concentrates in any form. Yet, due to a misconception of the legal and factual position, the petitioner used to declare that its products fall under Central E...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Ramamurthy and Company a Firm Represented by Its Sole Proprietor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ191
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The respondent herein obtained a decree against the petitioner herein in A.S. No. 89 of 1967 on the file of the Bombay City Civil Court. The decree got transferred to the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chen-galpattu and execution by way of attachment and sale of the immovable properties of the petitioner is being prosecuted in E.P. No. 130 of 1979. The petitioner filed E.A. No. 727 of 1979 under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act (XL of 1979), hereinafter referred to as the Act, for stay of execution. That application has been dismissed' by the Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu on 14th February, 1980 and the present revision is directed against the said order.2. The reasoning of the Court below for dismissing the application under Section 18 pf the Act is that the Act as such could not apply to Bombay City Civil Court, which passed the decree and hence the petitioner cannot seek amendment! of such a decree under Section 16 of the Act and in the...
Tag this Judgment!The Salem Municipal Council by Its Commissioner Vs. Karupanna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ191
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. The substantial question of law that had been framed at the time of admission of this appeal was whether the Courts below have properly construed the provisions of Section 82 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). Section 82 of the said Act reads as follows:82(1) Every building shall be assessed together with its site and other adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto unless the owner of the building is a different person from the owner of such site or premises.(2) The annual value of lands and buildings shall be deemed to be the gross annual rent at which they may reasonably be expect ed to let from month to month or from year to year less a deduction in the case of buildings, of ten per cent, of that portion of such annual rent which is attributable to the buildings alone, apart from their sites and adjacent lands occupied as an appurtenance thereto; and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowance for repairs or on any ot...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »