Chennai Court March 1982 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
V. Kuppusamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Depart ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ278
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The petitioner is a licencee for running a retail liquor shop in Kumbakonam town. The petitioner challenges the order of the second respondent in R.O.C.P. Spl. 8330-A/82, dated 5th February, 1982, in the present writ petition. That order was passed by the second respondent under Section 23(4) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act (X of 1937), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of the second respondent has set forth the irregularities found at the time of the inspection of the shop of the petitioner on 27th January, 1982, by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Thanjavur; and opining that a prima facie case for violation of the provisions of the Act and certain Rules, 1981, and condition No. 4 of the licence, the second respondent suspended the licence of the petitioner. It has been clearly stated that suspension is pending enquiry and disposal of the charges, against the petitioner.2. Mr. G. Gopinath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would attack...
Prakash Roadlines (P.) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd. and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ167
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This case raises a question of jurisdiction under Section 20, Civil Procedure Code that is to say, in which Court the suit should be instituted ; whether in a Court at Madurai or in the Court at Bangalore? The suit was actually instituted in the Sub-Court, Madurai. The contention of the defendant is that the one and only Court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit is the appropriate Court in Bangalore. The question has to be decided in the light of certain facts.2. The Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, Madurai Unit which has its office at Madurai, entrusted with the defendant--Prakash Road-lines (Pte) Ltd. Bangalore, 360 bags of milk powder to be carried by the defendant-lorry and delivered over to the consignee at Calcutta. The defendant took delivery of the goods and carried them in its lorry. But, the goods were damaged in transit and became unfit for human consumption when the bags were delivered at Calcutta to the consignee. The Tamil Nad...
Prakash Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1982
Reported in: II(1984)ACC141
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This case raises a question of jurisdiction under Section 20, C.P.C. that is to say, in which court the suit should be instituted; whether in a court at Madurai or in the Court at Bangalore? The suit was actually instituted in the Sub-Court, Madurai. The contention of the defendant is that the one and only court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit is the appropriate court in Bangalore. The question has to be decided in the light of certain facts.2. The Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation, Madurai Unit which has its office at Madurai, entrusted with defendant--Prakash Road-lines (Pvt.) Ltd. Bangalore, 360 bags of milk powder to be carried by the defendant-lorry and delivered over to the consignee at Calcutta. The defendant took delivery of the goods and carried them in its lorry. But, the goods were damaged in transit and became unfit for human consumption when the bags were delivered at Calcutta to the consignee. The Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corpor...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i, Madras Vs. K.S. Subbiah Pill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Mad)327; [1984]147ITR87(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J.1. Nine tax cases are being disposed of by this common judgment. The relevant assessment years are 1959-60 to 1965-66, 1969-70 and 1970-71. One K. S. Sankaran Pillai was carrying on business in tobacco at Guntur and at Whitefield in Bangalore. Apart from the tobacco business, Sankaran Pillai possessed some barns and agricultural lands. He died in 1947 leaving behind his only son, Subbiah Pillai, the assessee herein. The assessee admittedly sold the barns and the agricultural lands left behind by his father and invested the proceeds in the family business. The assessee admittedly sold the barns and the agricultural lands left behind by his father and invested the process in the family business. The assessee got married, the name of his wife being Kamala Subbiah Pillai. On June 6, 1957, the tobacco business which the assessee inherited from his father and in which he had invested the sale proceeds of the barns and agricultural land which also he had inherited from his fath...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. Paramanand Uttamchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR430(Mad)
Balasurahmanyan, J.1. The respondent before us in an individual called Paramanand Uttamchand. He is a married man with a family. He purchased a two-ground plot in Kilpauk Garden and constructed a building on it for his family residence. Before moving in, he performed a Grahapravesam. He received, on that occasion, a number of presents from relations, friends and well wishers. The case now before us is about those presents. For all but a few of the presents came to be charged to income-tax as income. The respondent questioned the assessment in appeal. He complained that he was being taxed, not only any income which was taxable under the I.T. Act, but on gifts received by him which were outside the concern of that Act. The AAC agreed with this position and deleted the amount assessee. The Department did not accept this order as correct. They appealed to the Tribunal for restoration of the assessment. But the Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal. On being moved by the Department, ho...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Auto Service Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: (1983)33CTR(Mad)106; [1985]156ITR740(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. The assessee in this case is a company carrying on business in automobile parts in Madras and other places. It took out a lease of land and building at Bangalore for housing its branch in that city. The floor area of the building was 8,000 square feet or so. The building was in a good business locality. But it was old or rather old-fashioned. The landlord was not in a position to put money of his own to remodel the building or build it anew. But the assessee was prepared to do the demolition and reconstruction, if allowed, at its own cost and expense. The landlord was agreeable to this course, if the assessee were willing to forego the ownership of the new building, even as it was being raised brick by brick. The assessee found it worthwhile accepting these terms, because the landlord was willing to grant the lease on a long-term basis for a term of 39 years at considerably low rents, as compared with prevailing rates for similar business accommodation in the vic...
M.M. Mohideen Thambi and Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: [1983]52STC376(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. In the well-known decision of the Supreme Court in Serajuddin's case : AIR1975SC1564 the modus operandi of export of goods from India through the STC (the State Trading Corporation) is analysed from the view point of sales tax liability. Dealers who have goods for export must export only through the STC, if the STC's monopoly extends to those goods. In formal terms, this involves a transfer of property in the goods from the local dealers to the STC and then a subsequent transfer of the same goods by the STC to the foreign buyers. In this milieu, although the dealers are undoubtedly engaged in foreign trade, they cannot make a claim for exemption from sales tax on the ground that their sales are 'in the course of export' within the meaning of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the requirement of the section is that the export must itself have been occasioned by the sale in order that the sale might be regarded as having taken place in the course of...
M. Janakirama Iyer Vs. Meenakshiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ461
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 877 of 1950 in I.A. No. 234 of 1980 in O.S. No. 21 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, The application was filed by the plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to enquire as to whether I.A. No. 234 of 1980 filed under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, is barred by time. The lower Court has dealt with the matter by raising a point whether the claim of mesne profits is barred by time and came to the conclusion that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, would apply to a case of this type, since the plaintiff had taken possession of all the properties covered in the suit and as the application for mesne profits had not been filed within a period of three years from the date when it accrues and that the application was barred by time. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower Court the second plaintiff has come fo...
Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. the Commissioner of Labour, Madras-6 and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: [1982(44)FLR416]; (1982)ILLJ354Mad
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed by the Oriental Bank of Commerce is whether the third respondent who was working as its Branch Manager and whose services were terminated by the petitioner is entitled to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) and prefer an appeal before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras under S. 41 of the Act. 2. The third respondent, as already stated, was appointed as an officer by the petitioner and posted as the Manager of the Madras Branch. While so on 28-7-76 the petitioner passed an order terminating the services of the third respondent. The order of termination of the third respondent's services was passed in view of the fact that pursuant to certain complaints against him, the third respondent was taken into police custody and later released on bail and that some criminal complaint was pending against him. Against this or...
Jalal Kalilur Rehman Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1982
Reported in: [1983]3ITD238(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri A. Krishnamurthy, Judicial Member - These three appeals are by the assessee, Shri Jalal Kalilur Rehman, relating to his income-tax assessments for the years 1975-76 to 1977-78. The sole objection common in these appeals pertains to the addition to the assessees income, for each of the years, of income derived from a property comprised of a tannery, which, according to the assessee, was declared orally as a wakf property in 1947. It appears that subsequently there was a declaration in a deed dated 30-9-1965 confirming the earlier oral declaration. An application was also made on 27-12-1975 to the Wakf Board under section 25 of the Wakf Act for registration and it appears that after due enquiry under section 27 of the Wakf Act, the Wakf Board issued the necessary notification on 23-11-1977 in the Tamil Nadu Governments Gazette. It is stated before us that the department has accepted the assessees claim for exclusion of the income derived from the property, for the period su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »