Chennai Court October 1982 Judgments
Workmen of Hindustan Teleprinters Vs. Hindustan Teleprinters Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ429Mad
Ramanujam, J. 1. W.A. No. 303 [1977 : This appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. in Writ Petition No. 1796 of 1976 allowing the same and directing the Industrial. Tribunal, Madras, to dispose of the matter before it afresh. 2. The management of Hindustan Teleprinters Limited was paying a conveyance allowance of Rs. 60 per month to those employees who drew Rs. 400 and above as basic pay provided they owned two wheeled power driven vehicles, For those whose basic salary exceeded Rs. 750 per month, the Management paid a conveyance allowance of Rs. 150 per month provided they owned a car. The Management, however did not pay any conveyance allowance to those of its employees drawing a basic salary of less than Rs. 400. The workmen of the Hindustan Teleprinters Limited made a demand on the Management demanding a similar conveyance allowance for the employees receiving basic salary of less than Rs. 400. As the Management did not accede to their demand, they raised an industrial di...
Tag this Judgment!Commissionr of Wealth-tax Vs. P.R. Shanmugam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1982
Reported in: [1985]153ITR330(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. Since these two tax cases arise out of the common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and as they involve practically the same issue, they are dealt with together. 2. The assessee, apart from having a money-lending business, had income from property, partly residential and partly let out as also share income from four firms in India. The assessee in this case has been assessed in the status of an individual and a resident and ordinarily resident in the assessment years 1964-65 to 1968-69. These assessment proceeded on the basis that the previous year in each case is the Tamil year. 3. For the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee filed his return of income on September 10, 1969, showing the previous year as Tamil Year ending with March 12, 1969. The assessment was completed under the provisions of s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the previous year mentioned in the assessment order is the year ended April 12, 1969. As re...
Tag this Judgment!Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Division, Madurai Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT770(Mad)
1. This is an appeal by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Customs Division, Madurai under Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence, awarded to the respondents in CA No. 381 of 1976 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. 2. A few facts not in controversy may be stated for the disposal of the appeal. The respondents herein along with one Mohammed Hassan (who was originally charge-sheeted as A-1 and whose case was split up since he has absconded) were proceeding in an Ambassador car from Dindigul to Madurai at about 5-45 p.m. on 5-1-1972. Mohammed Hassan (A-1) was driving the car. The Excise officials stopped the car on the road and searched it in the presence of witnesses and they suspected that some contraband was hidden in the vehicle by some mechanical device and therefore, took the car to Madurai for intensive check up. Accordingly, when the car was thoroughly examined in a workshop, a miniature tank (MO 1) was found ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rajamani Vs. the Co-operative Sugars Ltd, Chettur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad256; (1983)2MLJ91
1. This application is for condoning the delay of 401 days in filing the appeal. The appellant was the defendant in the suit which was dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed an appeal against that after a delay of 112 days and the appellant appeared through Mr.V.C.Palaniswami, for opposing the application to execuse the delay. The delay was, however, condoned and the appeal was admitted and finally it was disposed of on 21.07.1980 in which the petitioner appellant was shown to be ex parate. The grievance of the appellant is that the name of his counsel did not appear in the list when the appeal was listed for hearing with the result the appellant could not contest the said appeal when it was taken up for final disposal. The appellant came to know about the result of the appeal when he received the notice on 13.08.1981, about the execution proceedings. He came to Madras soon thereafter that is on 22.08.1981, and applied for a certified copy of the judgment in the appeal.2. The...
Tag this Judgment!P. Syed Mohammed Vs. V.P.L. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad259; (1983)1MLJ191
K.B.N. Singh, C.J.1. This appeal is against the order dated 28.04.1982 made in C.M.P. No. 3561 of 1982 in A.S.No. 794 of 1981 on the file of this court. By the said order a learned single Judge of this Court (Ratnam J) refused to modify his earlier order of attachment dated 07.01.1982 in C.M.P.No.13484 of 1981 in the said appeal. The respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No. 87 of 1979 on the file of the court of the sub-ordinate Judge of Devakotai against the appellant herein based on a promissory note dated 27.11.1976 for a sum of Rupees 13,000. The total claim made in the suit was Rs. 36,128.65. the defendant who is the appellant herein contested the suit and urged that out of the sum of Rs.13,000 he actually received only security, he also deposited with the plaintiff 42-1/2 sovereigns of gold chain. the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff actually advanced only Rs.11,700 to the defendant and passed a decree only for a sum of Rs. 16,122. the trial court also gav...
Tag this Judgment!U.R. Rangasamy Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Ministry of Fina ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1982
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ182Mad; (1983)IIMLJ501
K.B.N. Singh, C.J. 1. The appellant had filed the writ petition for quashing the order of the Government of India, dated 23rd December, 1981, by which it had rejected the request of the appellant for permission to accept employment with M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, Coimbatore, within two years of his retirement. The learned Judged quashed the order, as the order did not indicate the reason for the refusal. The learned Judge also directed the Government to dispose of the application of the appellant for permission by a reasoned order. It is against this part of the order, directing the Government to dispose of the application for permission filed by the appellant by a reasoned order, this writ appeal has been filed. 2. At the time of his retirement on 31st March, 1981, the Appellant was an Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise in the office of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras. After his retirement on 18th September, 1981, M/s. Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, Coi...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iii Vs. Madras Autorickshaw Dri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Mad)332; [1983]143ITR981(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee in this tax reference is a co-operative society. The question for out consideration is whether the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members within the meaning of s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act, 1961. This question has to be considered by reference to, (i) the principal object of the co-operative society, and (ii) the character of the business actually carried on by the society in terms of the object. 2. The name of the assessee is the Madras Autorickshaw Drivers' Co-operative Society Ltd. The main, if not, the only object of this society as avowed by its bye-law is : 'To promote the economic interests of the members of the society by purchasing autorickshaw vehicles and selling them on hire purchase terms to the members.' 3. On a mere reading of the bye-law it is clear that the society has come into being for the purpose of purchasing autorickshaw vehicles and re-selling the...
Tag this Judgment!K.J. Sivalingam Vs. S. Guruswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ85
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner in both these revisions is one and the same. The petitioner is a landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The respondent in each of the revisions is the tenant within the meaning of the Act. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant-respondent in C.R. P. No. 3620 of 1981 on two grounds, namely that he required the building in question for his own use and occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act and on the ground of bona fide requirement for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant-respondent in C.R.P. No. 3621 of 1981 putting forth the ground under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The tenants contested the petitions for eviction. The Controller countenanced the case of the landlord and ordered eviction against the tenants. The tenants appealed and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Baldevji Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: [1985]156ITR776(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. Under the scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961, development rebate like depreciation allowance in respect of plant and machinery is a capital allowance granted to a taxpayer in the computation of annual profits and gains under the head 'Business'. Unlike depreciation allowance, however, development rebate is an 'once and for all' allowance in the year of installation of the plant and machinery. The statute lays down certain conditions for the grant of development allowance. The first condition obviously is that the assessse must be the owner of the machinery or plant in respect of which development rebate is to be granted. The other condition which can be gathered from the provisions of the Act is that the assessee should continue to retain ownership of the machinery for at least eight years immediately following the year of installation. The sanction for the latter condition is that if an assessee should part with the machinery in question within the statutory per...
Tag this Judgment!The Workmen of the State Bank of India Represented by the General Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1982
Reported in: (1984)IILLJ239Mad
Chief Justice 1. This appeal by the employee is directed against the order of Mohan J. quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal, the second respondent herein. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may shortly be stated. 2. S. Thangavelu, A Head-Clerk in the Main Branch of the State Bank of India, Madras, whose cause has been exposed by the Appellant, obtained a loan of Rs. 2,500/- on 24th January, 1969 form the Bank for purchasing a scooter which was required to be purchased within one month and hypothecated to the bank. He did not purchase the scooter, as required under the terms of the loan. Therefore, on 31st May, 1969, the Bank asked the employee to return the amount advanced, failing which disciplinary proceedings would be taken against him. The amount not having been returned, on 4th September, 1969, a charge Memo (Exhibit M. 3) was issued against him by the Bank levelling two charges, namely (1) obtaining the loan on false representation, and (2) insubordinati...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »