Chennai Court September 1981 Judgments
K.P. Sivasundara Pillai Vs. C.P. Jagannatha thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad34
ORDER1. The proceedings, which are challenged by the petitioner in this writ petitioner. are those of the authorities exercising powers under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Act 31 of 1976), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The first respondent wanted relief under the Act in respect of a mortgage debt in favour of the petitioner under a deed of usufructuary mortgage dated 30-1-1976. The first respondent claimed himself to be a small farmer within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Act so as to come within the definition of `debtor' under S. 3 (f) of the Act. The portion of S. 3 (1) of the Act, relevant for the present purpose reads as follows:'(1) `small farmer' means a person whose principal means of livelihood is income derived from agricultural land and who holds, whether as owner, tenant, or mortgagee with possession, or partly in one capacity and partly in another. '(i) not more than two units of land, in a case where such person is a member of any of the Scheduled Tribes...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Ishak Maricar Vs. the Special Director, Enforcement, Directorate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1210
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the appellate order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, affirming the finding of the Special Director of Enforcement that the appellant has contravened Section 5 (1) (a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, but reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant by the Special Director of Enforcement from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 10,000.2. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein, who is a resident in India, had gone to Singapore in Feb. 1959 and stayed there till Jan. 1960 and during his stay at Singapore he had sold a shop' for 40,000.00 Malasian dollars but repatriated only a sum of Rs. 5000 equivalent to 321310 Malasian dollars. As regards non-repatriation of the balance amount of the sale proceeds by the appellant, proceedings were initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against the appellant for violation of Section 5 (1) (a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narayanaswamy Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: AIR1983Mad53
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, upholding the order of the Deputy Director of Enforcement, holding that the appellant has contravened S. 5 (1) (aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act, and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- and confiscation of the sum of Rs. 15,000/- which was taken from the person of the appellant on 10-5-1975 when he was apprehended on suspicion by the Enforcement Directorate.2. The appellant and one Varadaraj were found to carry a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively when they were apprehended near the Customs House, Madras on 10-5-1973. On suspicion that they were involved in foreign exchange violations, the amounts held by them were seized and statements from each of them were taken. In the statement given by the appellant, dated 10-5-1973 , he has stated that he came to Madras on the instructions of one Manickam Reddiar of...
Tag this Judgment!N. Jagie Gounder, the Nilgiris Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ435
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the respondent, dated 27th September, 1978, under Section 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 dawn for some time and it was subsequently 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 Tee 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...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu Ii Vs. United Nilgiri Service P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1981
Reported in: [1982]136ITR658(Mad)
Balsubrahmanyam, J.1. This tax reference raises a simple point about the application of s. 104 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The section empowers the ITO to levy an additional income-tax on companies in which the public are not substantially interest on that part of their income which is not distributed as dividends. 2. The assessee in this case is a company in which the public are not substantially interest. For the year ended February 28, 1966, the assessee had on its hands distributable profits of Rs. 47,167, but it did not distribute any dividends at all for the year. The ITO, accordingly, applied s. 104 to this company. 3. The assessee relied on sub-s. (2) of the section and urged that the order should not be made. The assessee pointed out that it had carry forward losses of prior years amounting to Rs. 2,41,718. Viewed against these losses, it was urged, the assessee's decision not to distribute any dividends cannot be regarded as unreasonable. 4. The ITO did not accept the position tha...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ramanlal Kamdar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1981
Reported in: [1987]169ITR802(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the levy of penalty on the assessee for the assessment year 1961-62 under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The question is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in reducing the penalt ?' 2. The provisions of section 271(1)(a) provide for the levy of penalty where an assessee has without reasonable cause failed to furnish his return of income or has without reasonable cause failed to furnish it within the time limited by the Act or by a statutory notice. The quantum of penalty leviable in respect of delayed submission of return is to be measured in terms of a percentage of the assessed tax on a time basis. The precise provision is to the following effect. The penalty levied would be a sum equal to 2% of the assessed tax for every month during which the default continues. The quantification of the penalty on the basis of every month's defaul...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Lakshmi Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)26CTR(Mad)163; [1982]135ITR203(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. There is an obvious mistake in the question of law sent up by the Tribunal. The question of law, as corrected, reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the payment made by the assessee to the Indian Cotton Mills Federation of Rs. 1,23,500 and Rs. 39,300 in the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively, were proper business expenditure admissible under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The assessee owns a textile mill in Coimbatore. It is also a member of an association of textile manufactures called the Indian Cotton Mills Federation, Bombay. The assessee manufactures higher counts of yarn and textiles made of higher counts. These manufactured articles could be made only from the yarn made out or imported cotton, described in the trade as 'global' cotton. The Indian Cotton Mills Federation acts as a canalising agency and as a cartel for the import of foreign cotton. The allotment of import entitlement by th...
Tag this Judgment!State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., Sipcot Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad273
ORDER1. The interesting question, which may often come up for consideration and which is involved in this applications is whether the suit for recovery of the amount due on a mortgage of property situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is a suit for land.2. Appln. No. 1974 of 1981 is by the plaintiff for leave to institute this suit on the allegation that as the title deeds were deposited at Madras, the part of cause of action arose within the local limits of this Hon'ble Court's ordinary original jurisdiction and that notwithstanding the property being outside the local limits, the suit is riot for land. The application is laid under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent. The said provision reads as follows: -,12. Original jurisdiction as to suits- And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description if, in the case of su...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesan and anr. Vs. K.V. Pandurangan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1981
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ313
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. The important point that arises for consideration in this case is, whether there are sufficient and adequate reasons to excuse the delay of one year and six days in filing the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1937) before the Tribunal. The main argument that is advanced on behalf of the appellants herein is that due to the mental shock that had actually influenced the mind of the parents of the deceased who was their eldest son, they were unable to prepare for instituting a claim in the Tribunal concerned, and as such, the strict rules of limitation contemplated by Section 5 of the Limitation Act, should not be applied to this case, especially when that plea has been put forward as a ground for excusing the delay of one year and six days. In support of this contention raised on behalf of the appellants, the decision in Samuthalamina v. State (1937) 2 M. L.J. 537 : 1974 A.C.J. 24 : A.I.R. 1974 Karn. 22, is relied on by the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Satish
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1981
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)46; [1982]133ITR834(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The question for our decision in this wealth-tax reference is whether the assessee would be entitled to the deduction of a debt in the computation of his taxable net wealth when the debt in question stands secured on two assets, one of which is, and the other is not, exempted from wealth-tax. The answer to the question turns on the construction of s. 2(m)(ii) of the W.T. Act, 1957. 2. A few facts will better illustrate the intricacy of the problem. The assessee owns, among other assets, two houses. In one of these he lives. The other he has let out to tenants. The latter house was built with the aid of a house building advance from the LIC (the life Insurance Corporation of India). The advance was made on the security of two items. The very house under construction was mortgaged to the LIC. Besides, the assessee was required to take a life policy for the amount and assign that policy as additional security for the house building advance. 3. Under the W.T. Act a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »