Chennai Court September 1981 Judgments
Collector of Central Excise Madras-34 Vs. R. Seshammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1981
Reported in: [1983]144ITR509(Mad)
Venugopal, J. 1. The first respondent's husband, Rathinaswamy Chettiar, was carrying on business in gold and gold jewelry under the name and stalk of Sri Nataraja Vilas Jewellery Hall at Chindambaram. He died on November 7, 1971, and thereafter the business was being carried on by his legal heir and the first respondent. On September 3, 1972, the intelligence wiling of the I. T. Dept. searched the residence and business premises of the first respondent and seized 21Kgs. of old and new gold jewellery and primary gold worth about Rs. 4,48,319. The ITO passed a summary assessment order under s. 132(5) of the I. T. Act, determining the total income at Rs. 6,90,390 and the tax liability at Rs. 6,30,775. On October 8, 1975, the President of India promulgated the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975, and the Ordinances was subsequently repealed by the Voluntary Discolors of Income and WEalth Act (Act No. 8 of 1976). The first respondent filed voluntary returns as per ss. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagyalakshmi and anr. Vs. K.N. Narayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad9
1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, against the order in O. P. 103 of 1978, District Court, Salem allowing an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying that the appellants should be directed to hand over custody of three minor children Rama Rao, Punitha and Nagaratnam to the respondent. The first appellant is the wife of the respondent herein, while the second appellant is the father of the first appellant. The first appellant and the respondent were married in 195 7 at Katapadi Village, Udipi taluk. The respondent secured a job with Kandasami Spinning Mills, Komarapalayam, in 1964, and brought the first appellant to that place where they lived together. Three children, viz., Rama Rao, Punitha and Nagaratnam were born to the first appellant and the respondent and the children had been admitted into school at Komarapalayam where they were studying. There w...
Tag this Judgment!B. Lakshmichand Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT322(Mad)
ORDER1. The proceedings impugned in the present writ petition are those under S. 112 of the Customs Act 52 of 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The facts leading to the action against the petitioner are as follows : 1. On 20th October, 1973, the Central Excise Officers, Coimbatore, intercepted one Chand Mohamed after he got out of Madras-Cochin Kerala Express and on search of his person and his baggage, found 235 wrist watches of foreign origin concealed and they also found a slip of paper on which the address and telephone number of the petitioner were written. The said Chand Mohamed gave a statement that the watches recovered from him were intended for delivery to the petitioner and that he had brought them from Bombay where he had received them from a person known as Radhakrishnan. The officers went to the premises of the petitioner on the same day and found him with another person by name Verghese. The said Verghese was subjected to search and seven wrist watches of foreign...
Tag this Judgment!M. Thangiah Nadar and Sons a Registered Partnership Firm Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ161
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the tenant occupying Door No. 38, Ghitrakkara Street, Madurai, a non-residential premise?, against whom an order of eviction is passed by the appellate authority and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in G.M.A No. 288 of 1978, Originally the landlady, the respondent herein, who is the owner of the above-said premises filed an application in R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk for evicting the tenant on the ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and on the ground that the landlady requires the premises for her own business under Section 10(3)(a)(iii). The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence let in by both the sides found against the landlady on the above-said both the grounds and dismissed the rent...
Tag this Judgment!Govindan S/O. Vaguthan @ Rasa Goundar Vs. Govindan S/O. Pallan @ Latch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ231
P. Venugopal, J.1. The judgment-debtor has filed this civil revision petition and the decree-holder is the respondent. The decree-holder filed an execution petition under Order 21, Rules 37,38, Civil procedure Code, for arresting and detaining the petitioner herein for realising the decree amount. The petitioner pleaded that he is a small farmer entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI' of 1976. The Executing Court negatived the claim holding that though the pstitioner does not own more than one unit of land, he is still not entitled to the benefits of Act XXXI of 1976 as his principal mans of livelihood was from incomes derived from a mango grove, which cannot be coastrued as 'agricultural land'. The Civil revision petition is directed against that order of the Executing Court.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that 'agriculture' includes horticulture and income derived from mango grove is also income derived from agricultural land and in view of the specific finding of t...
Tag this Judgment!R. Subbarajulu Vs. Sulaiman, Proprietor of Naaz Dry Cleaners (Died) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ348
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. C.R.P. NO. 2493 of 1978 is filed by the landlord against the order of the appellate authority in C.M.A. No. 308 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the appellate authority and the Principal Subordinate Judge of Madurai. Originally the landlord filed R.C. O.P. No. 415 of 1974 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller and the District Munsif of Madurai for fixation of fair rent in respect of the premises bearing door No. 15-Aj 1, Westveli Street, Madurai, belonging to him. The case of the landlord before the Rent Controller is that the tenant who is described as Sulaiman, Proprietor of Naaz Dry Cleaners, took on lease the above said premises for non-residential purposes orally agreeing to pay a rent of Rs. 75, per month the tenancy month being the English Calendar month. It is also the case of the landlord that the building is situate in a very important locality and it is very near to the bus stand and the railway unction and the building is 18 years ol...
Tag this Judgment!R. Krishnasami Naidu Vs. Pavayee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ47
S. Natarajan, J.1. The plaintiff, who succeeded before the trial Court, but lost before the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the owner of a house property comprised within the limits of the portion marked as ABDE in the plaint plan. It is also in evidence that the construction faces east and the roof also slopes towards east. In the wall running between B and D, there are no doorways or windows. The first respondent is admittedly the owner of the land situate west of the line DC. The dispute relates to the small triangular portion of land shown as BCD in the plaint plan and marked green. The appellant claimed that he had title; to the property under the sale deed in his favour and he was also in possession and enjoyment of the disputed strip of land. Even so, the first respondent, who is a recent purchaser of the property on the western, side, attempted to encroach upon the strip of land in BCD and put her western wall in such close proximity as to ...
Tag this Judgment!N. Jogie Gounder Vs. Regional P.F. Commissioner, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ179Mad
1. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the respondent, dated 27th September, 1978, under S. 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (XIX of 1952), hereinafter referred to as the Act. Earlier to January, 1973, the petitioner was treated as the employer in relation to an establishment, M/s. Forestdale Estate and Tea Factory, and he was covered by the provisions of the Act/Scheme. On 1st November, 1979, the Tea Factory was closed down for some time and it was sub-sequently sold to one Smt. Janaki Soundararajan in January, 1973. Practically, there was a disruption of the integrity of the establishment on the sale of the Factory to and in favour of the third party, Smt. Janaki Soundararajan. So far as the Tea Factory is concerned, the provisions of the Act/Scheme have been applied to it since they are factually attracted to it. The respondent wanted to apply the provisions of the Act/Scheme to the Forestdale Estate, which alone has come to be manned a...
Tag this Judgment!Chitram and Company Private Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC367(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. These two sales tax cases relate to Chitram and Co. Private Limited, which carries on business as structural and mechanical engineers and manufactures of cranes and winches. Of the two cases before us, one is an appeal against the Board of Revenue's order, and it relates to an assessment of this assessee under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The other tax case is a revision arising out of an assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, in respect of the same assessee. There are different transactions in each case, whose tax treatment has got to be considered by this Court; but the common question, which arises in respect of all the transactions is, whether they are taxable sales or merely works contracts. We shall take each of the transactions independently. 2. The tax case appeal raises the question, whether the assessee's receipts from Satyanarayana Brothers, Madras, of Rs. 21,32,500 can be included in the taxable turnover under the Tamil Nadu Gener...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: [1982]49STC259(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The question in this case is whether aluminium rods can be brought within entry 64 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The case of the appellant before us is that they cannot be brought within that entry. The reason why he puts forward this contention is that goods falling within that entry are liable to sales tax at the point of first sale in the State at the rate of 6 per cent on the turnover. Rods sold by the assessee are at the point of first sale in the State. If the contention of the assessee is accepted, they will be liable to tax only at the rate of 3.5 per cent or 4 per cent, as the case may be, for two different periods during the concerned assessment year 1974-75. 2. The assessing authority considered that aluminium rods must be considered to fall within entry 64. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner took a different view holding that the rods fall completely outside the scope of that entry. The Board of Revenue set asi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »