Chennai Court January 1982 Judgments
Bangalore Distributing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1982
Reported in: [1983]54STC140(Mad)
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. The same petitioner has filed both the petitions, and in W.P. No. 4160 of 1979 he had sought for setting aside the order of the first respondent dated 5th August, 1979, in and by which a sum of Rs. 4,145 representing tax and fee payable by the petitioner is imposed, and the order states that till the amount is paid, the goods would be detained. In W.P. No. 6143 of 1979, the relief is one for a declaration that sections 42 and 43 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and rule 35 framed therein, are null and void, in so far as they relate to inter-State sales of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner claims that it is a registered dealer in the State of Karnataka and is assessed to tax by the Commercial Tax Officer, XVI Circle, Bangalore. It also carries Central sales tax registration number in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner is the distributor for the paper manufactured by M/s. Kamrup Paper Mills, situate in Assam, and the petitioner effects sales in diff...
Tag this Judgment!N.P. Saraswathi Ammal and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: [1982]138ITR19(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This case concerns the assessments to income-tax made on a family group. The group consisted of a widow and her four sons. they were legatees under a will. the testator was one Perianna Pillai. He was a bus operator. He bequeathed his business to his widow and four sons. The widow took charges of the operation of bus service during minority of her sons. The present reference, however, relate to a period of time when three of the sons had already attained majority. As of this period, the ITO treated the widow, her three adult sons, and the minor son, as an association of persons (AOP), and charged to tax the income from the transport business in their hands as a single unit of assessment. 2. The assessee appealed against the assessments. They contended that as legatees under the will of Perianna Pillai, they were tenants-in-common, each entitled to an equal and separate share in the transport business bequeathed to them. It was urged that, in consequence, each le...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Best and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC174(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The only point for consideration in this revision which has been brought by the State Government from the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is whether monobloc pump sets can be classified under the item 'electrical goods' occurring in entry 41 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The full text of the entry is as follows : 'All kinds of electrical goods (other than those specified elsewhere in this Schedule), including wires, holders, plugs, switches, casings, cappings, reapers, bends, junction boxes, meter boxes, switch boxes, meter boards, switch boards, electrical earthenware and porcelain-ware.' 2. The present controversy arises out of an assessment for the year 1972-73. It may be observed that item 41-A of the First Schedule which was subsequently inserted with effect from 3rd March, 1975, which incidentally does not apply to the present case makes the following 'electrical instruments' as subjects of single point levy...
Tag this Judgment!C. Swaminatha Mudaliar Sons, a Partnership Firm Represented by One of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: (1982)1MLJ418
ORDERT.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The above civil revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 19th October, 1981 and the learned Counsel for the landlords has filed this memo, seeking for clarification and guidance with reference to the order passed already. Notice was issued to the other side and learned Counsel for both parties were heard.2. The landlords filed the petition for eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for demolition and reconstruction. During the pendency of the petition, the landlords filed an application in I.A. No. 579 of 1977 under Section 11 (4) of Act XVIII of 1960, for a direction to the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent failing which, for stoppage of all further proceedings and for an order of eviction. The tenants raised all sorts of contentions, namely, that the petitioners in the eviction petition are not the landlords, that the arrears prior to the period of three years are barred by time and that th...
Tag this Judgment!United India Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. Nagammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ323; 2009(1)TNMAC1
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the Insurance company against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore in M.C.O.P. No. 45 of 1978, awarding a compensation of Rs. 15,000 against the appellant Insurance Company and the 6th respondent in respect of a motor accident that took place on 22nd December, 1977.2. On 22nd December, 1977, about 11.30 p.m. the 6th respondent herein was proceeding in his car MSQ, 7505 on the Palghat main road towards Coimbatore. The car was driven by the owner, the sixth respondent, and one Krishna pillai and one Viswanathan were the occupants of the car. The car collided with a lorry MYM 6555 which was parked on the left side of the road. As a result of the said collision, Krishna Pillai, one of the occupants of the car, died on the spot. On the ground that the car was driven by the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident in a rash and negligent manner, the legal representatives, the wife and children of the decease...
Tag this Judgment!S. Alagiriswami Naidu Vs. Chellayee Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad384; (1982)2MLJ22
ORDER1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai in C.M.A.477 of 1978 in which the claim for restitution by the civil revision petitioner against the respondent was negatived. The facts are briefly as follows: -2. One Chellayee Ammal as Trustee and lessee of properties of Madhavanai Koil Trust, filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against S. Alagiriswami Naidu, the civil revision petitioner herein. The tenant, the civil revision petitioner herein, contested the claim on the ground that the said Chellayee Ammal, the respondent herein is not the Trustee and that the superstructures in the premises also do not belong to the Trust. The matter eventually came up before this court in S.A. No. 422 of 1969 and when the second appeal was pending the civil revision petitioner filed an application for stay of execution of the decree of the lower Court granted in favour of the respondent herein and as a condition precedent for sta...
Tag this Judgment!K. Noorunnisa and anr. Vs. the District Collector
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ28
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the leaned Subordinate Judge of Tirupathur, North Arcot District in C.M.A. No. 63 of 1976. The said civil miscellaneous appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge was fled by the civil revision petitioner against the order of the Sub Collector, North Arcot District levying stamp duty on the sale deed, dated 24th October, 1976 as per Ref. No. R. 7 U.V. 242 of 1976, dated 1st December. 1976.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The property comprising of a premises situate at M.C. Road, Ambur, was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,000 on 1st March, 1968. On the same date there was an agreement for reconveyance by which the purchaser agreed to reconvey the property for the same amount of Rs. 15,000 if the same is0paid within 7 years from the date of sale. The vendor within the period of 7 years enforced the agreement of reconveyance by paying tie sale price of Rs. 15.0C0 and accordingly a document o...
Tag this Judgment!N.S. Sivaprakasam Vs. M. Munuswamy Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ109
T.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent-landlord filed the petition, H.R.C. No. 1504 of 1979 for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of requirement for additional accommodation. The tenant in turn filed H.R.C. No. 2410 of 1979 against the landlord for restoration of the amenity, namely water supply. Both the petitions were tried together and the Rent Controller found that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is true and bona fide and therefore, ordered eviction. The other petition by the tenant for restoration of the amenity was also allowed since, in the meanwhile, the landlord himself restored the water supply. The tenant filed an appeal against the order of eviction and the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller with reference to the requirement for additional accommodation of the landlord. The tenant has now come on revision.2. I have heard learned Counsel for both sides and perused the orde...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramar thevar Vs. Sri Kannikaparameswari Amman Devasthanam by Truste ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ236
ORDERK. Shanmukham, J.1. The tenant who lost before the Revenue Court, is the petitioner before me.2. The landlord's application for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rents for the years 1976-77,1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 was resisted by the tenant on various grounds such as: (a) he has expended Rs. 1,900 for making a tamarind tope into a cultivating field; (b) he paid Rs. 3,000 as earnest money to the managing trustee of the landlord; (c) he had repaired the motor pumpset and spent for deepening the well at a cost of Rs. 1,500; (d) the managing trustee received from him Rs. 140 for paying the electric bills; (e) because of want of copious water supply from the well, he was not in a position to pay the arrears; (f) because of the suit O.S. No. 205 of 1970 by the landlord disputing his status as a cultivating tenant, he was unable to pay the rent; and (g) the claim is barred by time. However, ultimately, it turned out that the tenant admitted the arrears, but,...
Tag this Judgment!Amitkumar Amichand by Partner S. Mohanlal Vs. Jawanthraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ353
S. Mohan, J.1. The tenant is the revision-petitioner and the revision arises out of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of I960), hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The respondents (landlords) filed H.R.C No. 908 of 1978 seeking eviction of the revision-petitioner from the first floor of building bearing door No. 101, Narayana Mudali Street, Madras-1. The monthly rent is Rs, 450. The premises was let out both for residential and non-residential purposes. The landlords are in occupation of the ground floor which is not sufficient for their purposes. They are carrying on business in the front portion of the ground floor and residing in the remaining portion of the ground floor. Each of the three respondents, who have come, to succeed to this property on the death of Raji Bai, has a separate family in the ground floor. The daughter and son-in-law of the first respondent have come down to Madras and the son-in-law desires to set up medical practice and also open...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »