Chennai Court December 1982 Judgments
Government of India and ors. Vs. Prabhakar Match Industries, Dharmapur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1982
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT316(Mad)
1. The defendants in the suit O.S. 339 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Krishnagiri, viz., the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras and the Superintendent of Central Excise, Dharmapuri, are the appellants in the above appeal. The respondent herein, viz., a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of matches filed the suit, O.S. 339 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,839.60 being the amount alleged to have been illegally collected from it by the appellants. The case of the respondent (plaintiff) before the lower court is follows : For the period from 22-7-1967 to 31-12-1974, the plaintiff paid excise duty at the rate of Rs. 3.75 per gross of matches of 50 boxes. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Dharmapuri, issued a demand notice dated 4-6-1975 alleging that the Supreme Court of India by its judgment dated 4-11-1974, held that duty leviable...
Tag this Judgment!V. Veeramani Vs. Madurai District Cooperative Supply and Marketing Soc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ88Mad; (1983)IIMLJ49
Ratnam, J. 1. An interesting question in the realm of industrial jurisprudence arises for our consideration and decision in this appeal. To lay bare that question and to highlight the controversy, the factual backdrop may be briefly noticed. One Thiru Veeranan was a senior clerk in the Madurai District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd. He was placed in charge of Srinivasa Mills for a brief period during which a shortage in the stock of grains and pulses was detected in the godown in respect whereof Veeranan was also charge-sheeted. A domestic enquiry followed his explanation and as a result of the findings arrived at, Veeranan was dismissed from service. This led to a reference by the Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the Labour Court, Madurai, in I.D. No. 65 of 1970 in the following terms : '1. Whether the non-employment of Thiru C. Veeranan (Godown clerk) is justified, if not, to what relief he wou...
Tag this Judgment!P. Thanka Nadar Vs. Nesamony Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ415
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a fit and proper case where an order of remand is necessitated in view of the fact that the lower appellate Court entertained an appeal on the basis of Clause (4) of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 96(4) reads as follows--No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of a nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the a mount of value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed three thousand rupees. It is common ground that the suit was on a promissory note and that Exhibit A-l promissory note was filed before the trial Court and there was no one to speak about the contents of the same. There was no oral evidence let in by either side. Neither the plaintiff has gone into the box not the defendant. Apart from Exhibit A-1, the promissory note and Exhibit A-2, a copy of the suit notice and Exhibit A-3 postal acknowledgment, no other documents were filed before the trial Court and on the basis...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax and ors. Vs. S. Ram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)37CTR(Mad)158; [1984]147ITR278(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This judgment disposes of as many as 146 tax cases. They are from different taxing statutes. But all of them raise an identical question about 'provision for gratuity'. And they were all heard together. 2. In ordinary times, a comprehensive hearing of this kind would have been unthinkable. The court would have had to mull over each case, as it arose, within the confines set by the question in each reference. But, then, the Supreme Court had recently come out with a ruling on the 'provision gratuity' in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT : [1981]132ITR559(SC) . The Supreme Court were there engaged in disposing of references which arose under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. But then utilised the occasion to go into the fundamental concept of 'provision for gratuity'. Just about that time, by a stroke of luck, as it were, we had in our dockets a number of tax reference, all of them on the same point about provision fo...
Tag this Judgment!Christian Medical College Vellore Association (by Secretary) Vs. Gover ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ372Mad
Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner in these writ petitions is the Christian Medical College, Vellore Association, which has been registered in 1947 under the Societies Registration Act (21 of 1860). Clause (2) of the Memorandum of Association reads as follows : 'The object of the association is the establishment, maintenance and development of a Christian Medical College and Hospitals in India were women and men shall receive an education of the highest grade in the art and science of medicine and nursing or in one or other of the related professions to equip them, in the spirit of Christ, for service in the relief of suffering and the promotion of health.' 2. As seen from the history and statistics of the Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore, Dr. Ida Soudder, a grand daughter of the First American Medical Missionary in India realizing that the basic need in India was women doctors as custom did not allow women to be treated by men and to relieve the suffering of women in partic...
Tag this Judgment!indra Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rakecha and Co., Bombay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad201; (1983)2MLJ243
ORDER1. This is a revision petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 115 of the Civil P.C. 1908 as amended by the Act 104 of 1976, questioning the correctness of the division rendered by the lower appellate Court which held on the point as to whether the Sub Court, Chengalpattu had got jurisdiction to try the suit as contended by the revision petitioner herein, that the said Court had no jurisdiction, confirming the order of the trial Court which was to the same effect.2. The suit was filed by the revision petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9460-79 by way of damages from the respondents 1 and 2 alleging that the first defendant-first respondent herein through the broker K.P.Shah of Madras-3 entered into a contract with the revision petitioner on 16-4-1977 for purchase of 25 cases of 60s Combed Indra Cotton Yarn, each case to contain 100 Kgs. at the rate of Rs.148/-per 5 Kgs Ex-Mill Sales Tax and Excise Duty etc., that a sum of Rs.7,500/-lying with the plaintiff-revision...
Tag this Judgment!Narasu's Coffee Company (Firm) by Its Managing Partner, Mr. R.P. Sarat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-23-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ203
S. Mohan, J.1. The revision is by the landlord who sought eviction of the respondent under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act) for wilful default in payment of rent; under Section 10(2)(vii) for denial of title of the landlord; under Section 10(3)(a)(in) for bona fide need of the landlord for occupation of non-residential premises; and under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act for demolition and reconstruction of the petition mentioned premises.2. The petition-property is admittedly a non-residential property which is situate in T. S. No. 2622 in South Main Street, Pudukkottai. This property as well as the adjoining property bearing T.S. No. 2621 were purchased by the revision petitioner from the previous owner Jayachandran. This was under the sale deed dated 14th September, 1978, marked as Exhibit A-1. This respondent had been a tenant for more than 25 years. The petitioner is doing business in a rented building which is...
Tag this Judgment!Adaikkaji Vs. Abdul Rahman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ152
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 658 of 1970 District Munsif's Court, Pudukottai, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. She had entered into an agreement with the respondent herein and another on 20th November, 1968, for the sale of certain properties to her and had also paid an advance of Rs. 1,500. The sale of the properties did not take place as agreed to between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner sought the recovery of the advance paid. In addition, a sum of Rs. 555 was also due to the petitioner on the footing of a promissory note endorsed in her favour and executed by the respondent and another. On 27th January, 1971, the petitioner obtained a decree against the respondent and another for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,216.28 with interest at 6% per annum on Rs. 2,000 from 3rd August, 1970 in respect of the two aforesaid claims. In order to realise the amounts due to the petitioner under the decree, the petitioner took out executio...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Sales Corporation Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour Iii ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC392(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These are cases in which penalties have been levied under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The levies of penalty are questioned on two grounds : (i) that they are unconstitutional, and (ii) that they are not valid even under the Act. The constitutional issue is raised in the writ petitions. The issue as to the propriety of the penalties is raised in the tax revision cases. We shall first deal with the tax revision cases and then proceed to deal with the writ petitions. 2. Section 22(2) of the Act enacts that if any one collects sales tax or purports to collect sales tax in contravention of section 22(1) he shall be liable for penalty up to one and a half times the amount so collected. Section 22(1) will be contravened under three different sets of circumstances : (i) where sales tax is collected by a person who is not a registered dealer at all; (ii) where even a registered dealer collects tax on transactions which are not taxable at a...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Indian Cable Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1982
Reported in: [1984]56STC192(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The assessee claimed in his assessment a sum of Rs. 52,285.27 which it gave to its distributors as additional discount or rebate, over and above the normal discount. The assessing authority held that the assessee was not entitled to exclude this sum of Rs. 52,285.27 form the taxable turnover. On appeal, the Tribunal pointed out that the liability of the assessee to pay additional discount or rebate had been contracted under the distribution agreement entered into between the assessee and the distributor and it was not as though the additional discount was allowed subsequently on second thought, nor is there any suggested by the assessing authority that Rs. 52,285.27 was not, in fact, paid by way of discount. This being so, the Tribunal held that the amount cannot form part of the sale price at which the goods were sold and hence it cannot be included in the turnover much less in the taxable turnover. 2. The Tribunal's decision is quite right both on the facts an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »