Chennai Court April 1982 Judgments
M. Kanthilal Bafna Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1982
Reported in: [1984]55STC213(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. In this case the short question is whether cast scrap is iron scrap. Outside the law courts, the question has merely to be stated to be answered in the affirmative. For, just as cast iron is iron, cast iron scrap must be iron scrap. It stands to reasons and common sense. 2. But the learned Government Pleader argued that cast iron scrap is not iron scrap. He went to the extent of saying that iron scrap excludes cast iron scrap. The argument arose on a construction of sub-entry (a) of entry 4 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as it stood before 1st April, 1973. Entry 4 speaks of 'iron and steel goods' maintaining the broad distinction, as well as the close association between iron goods and steel goods. At the material time with which we are concerned in this case, sub-entry (a) of entry 4 read as follows : 'Pig iron and iron scrap.' 3. The expression 'iron scrap' is used without qualification. 'Pig iron' may mean either 'pig ir...
Tag this Judgment!The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Madras and anr. Vs. V. Rajagopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad414; (1982)2MLJ165
Ratnam, J.1. This is an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 to condone a delay of 390 days in filing a writ appeal against the order in W. P. No. 4080 of 1977. The petitioners herein were respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition and Padmanabhan J. allowed the writ petition on 15-7-1980. The petitioners herein as well as the third respondent in the writ petition filed on 1-10-1980 an application in W.M.P. 7874 of 1980 seeking a review of the order passed in W.P. 4080 of 1977. The review application so filed by the petitioners and another was dismissed on 7-8-1981 Thereafter, the petitioners alone preferred an appeal against the order in W.P. 4080 of 1977 on 11-9-1981, admittedly after 390 days after the expiry of the time allowed for preferring such an appeal.2. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it has been stated that the petitioners wereadvised to file a review petition in W.M.P. No. 7874 of 1980 and that petition was dismissed on 7-8-198...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1982
Reported in: AIR1982Mad417
ORDER1. The point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision petition is :Whether the court in which the suit has been instituted for a declaration is maintainable inasmuch as the said Court has got jurisdiction as provided in the special enactment viz., the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959)?The submission, that is emanating on behalf of the State - the revision petitioner herein - advanced by the learned Additional Government Pleader, is to the effect that the written statement filed in the suit itself involves a point that is now urged before this Court in the revision viz., that the Court in which the suit has been instituted, has got no jurisdiction, Whatever may be the stage at which the suit may be lying in the trial court, nothing prevents an argument being advanced with respect to jurisdiction, because, when once it is found that there has been no Jurisdiction vested with the forum, thereafter, that forum is not entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Devamani and ors. Vs. the State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1320
1. On a reference by Paul, J., these criminal revisions come before us for being disposed of by a Division Bench. The common question of law raised for consideration in these cases, is whether means rea must be established, before the Collector of a District or Presidency Town can pass an order of confiscation of (a) an essential commodity seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity, in exercise of his powers under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Suryamurthy, J. has answered the question in the affirmative in two cases, viz., (Arunachala Mudaliar in re 1979 Mad LW Cri 98 and R. Ramaswami v. R. D. O. Vridhachalam, 1979 Mad LW Cri 121) Paul, J., was of opinion that Section 6-A is a self contained section dealing ...
Tag this Judgment!Cutfast Abrasive Tools Private Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC40(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. In this revision, the question is whether the goods sold by the assessee fell under entry 81 or entry 41 or entry 41-B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. At the time material for the assessment year in question, namely, 1974-75, entry 81 was as follows : '81. All machinery worked by (i) electricity, At the point of (ii) diesel, (iii) petrol, (iv) furnace first 5.' sale oil, (v) kerosene, (vi) coal including in the State. charcoal or (vii) any other fuel or power; and parts and accessories of such machinery other than those specifically mentioned in this schedule. 2. During that assessment year, entry 41 as given below was in force only up to 2nd March, 1975. '41. All electrical goods, machinery, instruments, apparatus, appliances, accessories and component parts (either sold as a whole or in parts), including fans, lighting bulbs, electrical earthenwares, porcelain and all other instruments, apparatus, appliances, accessories an...
Tag this Judgment!Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC74(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. In this revision filed by a sales tax assessee, the question raised is about the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to use his special powers of revision to revise the assessee's Central sales tax assessment for 1968-69. In the assessment for that year, the assessing authority left out of account a turnover of Rs. 2,42,842.86, which, it is now admitted, represented the assessee's sales in the course of inter-State trade. The amount was omitted in the assessee's return. It was also omitted in the assessment order. To any one who happened to peruse either the return or the assessment order, there would not be the slightest indication that Rs. 2,42,842.86 was omitted to be charged to Central sales tax, for the assessment agreed with the return, by and large. 2. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes happened to peruse the assessee's Central sales tax file for this very assessment year 1968-69. In that file was found a copy of the assessee's ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Co. (P.) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC217(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. This case arises under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. A turnover of Rs. 3,10,495.38 which represents sales turnover by the assessee to registered dealers in other States was subjected to tax at 2 1/2 per cent for the assessment year 1966-67. Although C form declarations covering that turnover had not been filed by the assessee before the assessing authority, the order of assessment was taken in appeal by the assessee on some other matter. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner disposed of the appeal, but he did not find out whether Rs. 3,10,495.38 taxed at the concessional rate of 2 1/2 per cent was covered by C form declarations at all. Against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee went up in further appeal before the Tribunal apparently to agitate some other questions. At that stage, the State Government filed an enhancement petition before the Tribunal pointing out that the turnover of Rs. 3,10,495.38, which was taxed at the concessio...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Appulu Vs. A. Fatima Zohra and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ340
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. Tenant is the petitioner herein. Aggrieved against the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the entire building, this revision petition is filed on the ground that the order of appointment of Commissioner pending disposal of a petition for eviction relates only to a procedural aspect and therefore, as against the order of the Rent Controller, no appeal lies to the appellate authority under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, and hence, the order passed in C.M.A. No. 122 of 1980, having been passed without jurisdiction, requires to be set aside.2. It is the admitted case between the parties that both the tenant and he landladies sought for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the properties. The, Rent Controller passed orders only in the application filed by the landladies directing that the properties to be inspected are the properties described only in R.C.O.P. Nos. 675 and 679 of 1978 and not the entire building. The appeal is confine...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Appulu Vs. A. Fatima Lohra and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad55
1. Tenant is the petitioner herein. Aggrieved against the appointment of a Commissioner to inspect the entire building, this revision petition is filed on the ground that the order of appointment of Commissioner pending disposal of the petition for eviction relates only to a procedural aspect and therefore, as against the order of the Rent Controller, no appeal lies to the appellate authority under S. 23 of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, and hence, the order passed in C. M. A. 122 of 1980, having been passed without jurisdiction, requires to be set aside.2. It is the admitted case between the parties that both the tenant and the landladies sought for appointment of an advocate, Commisioner to inspect the properties. The Rent Controller passed orders only in the application filed by the landladies directing that the properties to be inspected are the properties described only in R. C. O. P. 675 and 679 of 1978, and not the entire building. The appeal is confined to the order in I. A. 262 of...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Angappan Vs. Coimbatore Murugan Mills Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1982
Reported in: [1983]54CompCas5(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 100 of 1973, on the file of the Sub-court, Coimbatore, who was unsuccessful in both the courts below, is the appellant herein. 2. The appellant was the managing director of M/s. Coimbatore Murugan Mills Ltd., till its management was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Textiles Corporation as authorised controllers by the order of the Govt. of India dated December 19, 1970. When possession was taken over by the said Corporation, there was a deficit in the yarn stocks to the tune of 995.5 kgs., valued at Rs. 9,796.29. Subsequently, the management of the mills was taken over by the National Textile Corporation (Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry) Ltd. Thereafter, the National Textile Corporation field the said suit for the recovery of Rs. 9,796.29 from the defendant. 3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that he was not liable to pay the suit claim, that during the relevant period, he and the staff working under him were physically prevented from enterin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »