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.
R.P. Ramaswamy Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: (1983)35CTR(Mad)128; [1983]144ITR87(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The petitioner is an old wealth-tax assessee. For the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, the assessee did not his wealth-tax returns under s. 14(1) of the W. T. Act, 1957. However, no notices were issued by the WTO under s. 14(2) of the Act calling upon the assessee to file returns of his net wealth for these three assessment years. Short of filing returns, the assessee, however, placed all the materials requisite for his assessment for these three years. It may be observed that since the assessee was assessed to wealth-tax for the earlier years, those materials were also before the WTO. On the basis of all these considerations, the assessments were completed. 2. Parallel Proceedings for fently were initiated by the WTO order s. 18(1) of the Act for non-filling of the wealth-tax return u/s. 14(1). During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner approached the CWT under s. 18(2A) of the Act with a request that the penalties may be waived. It wa...
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: [1982]51STC259(Mad)
Padmanabhan, J. 1. These two tax cases are being disposed of by this common judgment. The only effective question in these tax cases that falls for our decision in these two cases is as follows : 'Whether the freight charges incurred by dealer in the despatch of cement to the place of the customer could be deducted from the total turnover of the dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act ?' 2. The dealer is 'Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.'. The periods with which we are concerned are 1st April, 1966, to 31st December, 1967, and 1st January, 1968, to 31st March, 1968. For the assessment year 1966-67, the total freight charges case to Rs. 35,23,765.20 and for the year 1967-68, it came to Rs. 43,53,992.98. The dealer claimed, among others, that the freight charges should be excluded from the total turnover. The claim was negatived by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Lalgudi. The dealer preferred appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli. H...
Buhari Trading Co. Vs. Star Metal Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad150; (1983)1MLJ10
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Judge, Shanmukham J. trying the following two issues as preliminary issues and giving a finding thereon-1. Is the suit not maintainable in view of the dismissal of C. S. 548 of 1981? 2. Is the suit liable to be dismissed as the cause of action does not arise under Admiralty Jurisdiction of the court? On the first issue, the learned Judge held against the defendant and found that the suit is maintainable. On the second issue, though the learned Judge agreed with the defendant that the cause of action does not arise under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this court, treated the suit as one filed under the Ordinary Original Jurisdiction of this court and in that view the suit was held not liable to be dismissed. It is against this finding that the defendant has preferred this appeal. 2. Before dealing with the arguments in the appeal, it is necessary to set out certain facts. The plaintiff is a firm of partnership register...
Soundarapandi Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1199
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the accused in S. C. No. 6 of 1980 on the file of the Court of Session, Madurai Division, challenging the correctness and validity of the judgment, convicting him under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. The crux of the indictment of the prosecution is that, on 15-9-1979 at about 1.30 P. M., in the Bazaar Street at Chinnalapatti village, the appellant (accused) caused the death of Kalyani, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, by cutting him with an aruval (bill-hook) M.O. 1 on the upper part of the left shoulder, on the right scapula, on the left side of the neck, on the ankle of the left leg and other parts of the body and thereby made himself liable to be punished under Section 302, I.P.C. To substantiate the above charge, the prosecution has. examined P. Ws. I to 14, filed Exs. P-i to P-18 and marked M. Os. 1 to 12.3. The scene village is known as Chin-nalapatti lying within the jurisdiction of Am...
K. Thivyaraj Vs. the Chief Secretary, Government of Pondicherry and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ136
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Wireless Operator (Head Constable), Police Radio Station, Pondicherry. While he was so serving as Wireless Operator he was deputed for bandobust duty in connection with a Very Very Important Person's visit on 15/16th April, 1976. On 15th April, 1976, after rehearsal in connection with the VVIP visit, he reported that his wireless L.V.M. 208 Man pack set was not working properly and on report about the same, the Radio Supervisor one Murugesan, Police Radio Branch, Pondicherry requested him to report at 09-00 hours on 16th April, 1976, at the Police Radio Station to receive the set and instructions as to how to operate the set. He failed to report at 09-00 hours on 16th April, 1976, as required and thus neglected to obey the duty instructions by absenting himself without reporting for duty. When he was enquired about his absence to receive instructions during the visit of VVIP, the petitioner appeared in the O. R. of the Commandant, PAP...
Jayprakash Match Works, Kovilpatti and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1982
Reported in: 1989(22)ECC218; 1983(12)ELT58(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions the validity of Notification No. 137 of 1981, Central Excise, dated 2-7-1981, issued by the Central Government in exercise of their powers under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 giving exemption to a limited extent in respect of excise duty leviable on certain conditions is questioned. In Form the petitioners have prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the Union of India and the Superintendent of Central Excise to forbear from collecting excise duty on matches in excess of that which is payable under Notification No. 42 of 1981. All these petitioners are manufacturers of matches without the aid of power who may be hereafter designated as non-mechanised sector manufacturers. In order to appreciate the point raised in these writ petitions, it is necessary to set out the Notification which have a relevance to the question. Notification No. 42 of 1981 issued under rule 8 reads as follows :- 'GSR .... In exercise of the pow...
Rosaline Rajan Vs. S.M. Joseph Xavier Lourdarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad164
1. This appeal by the wife is directed against the order of annulment of marriage in a suit filed by the respondent (husband) on the ground that the wife is psychologically impotent and that the marriage was not consummated. The respondent husband stated in his petition that he married the appellant on 24-11-1976, but that the marriage has not been consummated on account of the wife's aversion towards sex. The appellant wife denied the same and contended that the marriage was consummated, that she lived with her husband for a very short period at Madras and that they are living apart on account of the fact that she is employed at Thanjavur and the husband at Madras. In particular, she denied the psychological impotency attributed to her.2. The learned Judge has considered the evidence, oral and documentary, and found that, from the circumstantial evidence and the correspondence, the marriage could not have been consummated and that the appellant wife is averse to sexual life with the r...
Odeon Mani Tiraiarangam, Represented by Its Partner, M. Rajasekharan a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ392
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This batch of writ petitions question validity of the application of Sections 4, 4-A, 4-B and 4-C of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Local Authorities Finance Act, 1961, with effect from 1st June, 1978, to the various theatres which according to the petitioners herein are only liable to pay the compounded rate of tax under Sections 5-A and 5-B of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act.2. Since the prayer involved is the same in all these writ petitions and the question involved relates to the payment of entertainment tax at the compounded rate under Sections 5-A and 5-B, we can usefully refer to the facts in W.P. No. 2505 of 1978. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2505 of 1978 is the licencee of a theatre called 'Theagaraja Talkies' in Thiruvanmiyur. He is running a theatre for over ten years in that place. Originally, he was paying the taxes under Sections 4, 4-A and 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Entertainments Tax Act and under ...
Palaniappa Gounder Vs. Nallamuthu Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ258
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 34 of 1970, Sub-Court, Erode, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition, which is directed against the order of the Courts below, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner here in to declare the Court-auction-sale held on 3rd January, 1974 as void. On 28th November, 1970, one Perumal Gounder, the husband of the second respondent and father of respondent 3, herein, obtained a decree in O. S. No. 34 of 1970, against the petitioner for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000 with interest at 6 1/4 per cent, per annum from 25th November, 1967, till 28th November, 1970 and thereafter at 6 per cent, per annum till the date of realisation and costs. This decree was put into execution in E.P. No. 40 of 1973 in O.S. No. 34 of 1970 and the decree-holder prayed for the realisation of the amounts due under the decree by the sale of certain properties belonging to the petitioner. In the course of those proceedings the petitioner, thoug...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›