Chennai Court February 1982 Judgments
Chesebrough Pond's Inc. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC164(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. These revisions relate to a group of assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The assessee is a well-known manufacturer and dealer in face powder, having its head office and manufacturing unit at Madras and branches at Bombay and other places. A common point arises in all these revisions, although they related to different assessment years. A department of the Government of India, known as Canteen Stores Department, which is part of the Defence Ministry, placed orders for the purchase of the goods manufactured by the assessee. The order were placed by them with the Bombay branch of the assessee. The orders, when received by the Bombay branch, were forwarded by that branch to the head office at Madras. The head office then consigned these goods by lorry to the Bombay branch warehouse, mentioning in the lorry way-bill, that the goods had been despatched against orders placed by the Canteen Stores Department. When the goods reached Bombay, they were cleare...
Tag this Judgment!M. Chengaiah Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ348
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner was working as L.G.G.S. in Taluk Office, Egmore, Nungambakkam, Madras-8. He was placed under suspension by an order, dated 29th May, 1979, under Rule 17(e)(i), (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, with effect from the forenoon of 24th April, 1979, passed by the second respondent. Having been kept under suspension for more than two years and three months, he is seeking for quashing the order of suspension, on the ground that no further step had been taken on the Crime No. 908 of 1979 registered as against him in Rule 1, Myapore police station under Sections 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code. Along with him as against four other persons also, crime numbers were registered but so far no charge-' sheet had been laid. He refers to G.O. Ms. No. 211, P. & A.R., dated 27th February, 1980, wherein Government had impressed upon the concerned authorities the need to reduce the period of suspension to the berets mini...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. United India Fire and Gen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: [1983]140ITR994(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee which figures in this income-tax reference is a general insurance company. It carries on business with head office in India and branches abroad. For the account year ended December 31, 1966, the company's profit and loss account showed an item described as 'profit due to devaluation Rs. 7,75,720.' The ITO brought to charge the whole of this sum for the purpose of income-tax, since it represented the balance of profits according to the assessee's own accounts. The assessee, however, questioned the correctness of this assessment. According to the assessee in amount of Rs. 4,58,049 which forms part of Rs. 7,75,720 could not be brought into the assessment, since it did not come to the assessee as profits from an outside source, but only represented a book surplus which resulted on the conversion, in terms of the devalued Indian rupee, of the existing balances of foreign currencies and the value of the net assets in the assessee's overseas branches in Cey...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. K. Ramachandra Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Mad)126; [1983]141ITR771(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee in this wealth-tax reference owned a life interest in a number of houses on the relevant valuation date, namely, March 31, 1973. For the assessment year 1973-74, he claimed exemption under s. 5(1)(iv) in respect of one of the houses. The WTO refused the exemption on the ground that the assessee was only a life tenant of the house. The Tribunal, in appeal, however, held that even a mere life interest in the house was entitled to exemption under the Act. 2. In this reference made at the instance of the Revenue, the question of law for our opinion is as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the value of his lie interest in Door No. 311, Mint Street Madras, for the assessment year 1973-74 ?'3. Before us Mr. Rangaswamy, learned counsel for the Revenue, put forward the contention that only property in which an assessee has full a...
Tag this Judgment!K.M.S. Subbiah Chettiar and Bros. (Firm) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: [1983]142ITR16(Mad)
1. This tax revision case arises under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (referred to as 'the act' in this judgment). There was originally a partnership firm styled K.M.S. Mallayan Chettiar and Brothers in Theni. The firm consisted of seven partners. Mallayan Chettiar died on July 4, 1972. Thereupon, the firm was reconstituted under the name and style, K.M.S. Subbiah Chettiar and Brothers,. The reconstituted firm has 17 partners. On September 17, 1974 pursuant to its reconstitution the reconstituted firm applied for registration to the Agrl. ITO Theni, for the registration of the firm under s. 27 of the Act. The application was filed in September, 1974. In and by his proceedings GIR 48(m) Upm/74-75, dated December 20, 1974 the Agrl, ITO Theni, passed an order directing the registration of the firm with effect from the assessment year 1974-75. For the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 renewal of registration was also granted to the firm. On the very same date, the said Agrl. ITO ...
Tag this Judgment!Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Dindigul Vs. V. Subbiah N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: [1982(45)FLR287]; (1983)IILLJ320Mad; (1982)2MLJ140
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, in respect of a fatal accident, resulting in the death of the 1st respondent's son one Ayyavu. 2. The said Ayyavu had been employed by the 2nd respondent-Contractor and he received a personal injury during the course of the employment, resulting in his death, on 29th November, 1976. At the time when the accident to place he was digging a plot measuring 140' length, 110' breadth and 10' depth. In the process of forming a canal at Periakombayar Dam site where the digging was being done. When he was digging the last portion of the post measuring 3 metres length, 2 metres breadth and 4 metres depth, the entire earth fell on his and he died on the spot. The first respondent is the father of the deceased and he filed an application for compensation claiming himself to be the sole heir of the deceased. The claim was opposed both by the 2nd respondent as well as by the Department, ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Thakorebhai and Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC104(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J. 1. The tax cases and writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai, is the petitioner in the tax revision cases and also in the writ petitions. The cases arise under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (referred to as the Act in this judgment). The relevant assessment years are 1972-73 and 1973-74. 2. M/s. Thakorebhai and Brothers, referred to in this judgment as the dealer, carries on business in Karaikudi in diamonds. On the basis of the recovery of certain anamath accounts from the dealer, the petitioner revised the assessment for the year 1972-73 and 1973-74. For the year 1972-73, the total and taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 87,19,045. The assessee was asked to pay a tax of Rs. 7,84,714 and a penalty of Rs. 7,84,714, . For the year 1973-74, the total and taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 23,32,761. The assessee was asked to pay a tax of Rs. 2,09,949 and a penalty of Rs. 2,24,316...
Tag this Judgment!Engineering Investments P. Ltd. Vs. Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd., Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad1
ORDER1. Petition is filled under Section 24(1)(b)(i) of the Civil P.C. for withdrawing the appeal in A.S. No.297 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court for declaration that the Bank Guarantees executed by the second respondent -Bank herein, is illegal ,void and unenforceable and for consequential injunction restraining first respondent from enforcing the four bank guarantees executed by second respondent in favour of first respondent. The Suit was dismissed resulting in the filing of A.S. No.297 of 1981 ,as against it. C.M.P. No.1176 of 1981 was filed for interim injunction, which was granted.2. Earlier to institution of O.S. No. 5101 0f 1981 , petitioner filed C.S. No. 316 of 1980 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,02,500/- and for declaring that the order passed by the first respondent on 9-5-1980 is illegal and not binding and for consequential injuction against it and from enforcing or recovering the amounts covered by the four bank guarantees given by the second ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramasyee Agro-industries Limited Vs. the India Sugar Refineries Limite ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad194; (1983)1MLJ91
1. This is an appeal against the rejection of an application filed under O. 16, R. 19 Civil P. C. read with S. 9 of the Company Court Rules, for the issue of a subpoena to a witness residing at Bombay, directing him to attend and give evidence in a company petition in which the appellant is the respondent.2. The learned Judge dismissed the application on the ground that O. 16, R. 19 is not applicable to a case where the witness resides beyond a distance of 500 kilometers, and since Bombay is beyond 500 kilometers the Court cannot issue any order directing the witness to attend in person to give evidence and that the applicant must make his own arrangement to secure the evidence of that witness.O. 16, R. 19 C.P.C. reads as follows:"19. No one shall be ordered to attend in person to give evidence unless he resides-(a) within the local limits of the Court's ordinary original jurisdiction, or(b) without such limits but at a place less than one hundred or (where there is railway or steamer ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Kothandraman and anr. Vs. Sub-collector, Mettur and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad63; (1983)1MLJ170
1. The petitioners herein have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent Dt. 8th Sept., 1981 allowing the second respondent's appeal and setting aside the order of the Special Tahsildar, Debt Relief, Mettur Dt, 31st Oct., 1980 holding that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980.2. The petitioners herein have taken a mortgage loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the second respondent on 8th April, 1974 and the said mortgage debt was outstanding on the date of the commencement of Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980. Taking advantage of the provisions of the said Act, the petitioners filed an application under S. 6 of the said Act before the Special Tahsildar (Debt Relief) Mettur for a certificate of redemption alleging that their annual household income is less than Rs. 4,800/- and that therefore they are entitled to the benefits of the Act. The said application was opposed by the second respondent on the ground that the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »