Chennai Court July 1982 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Singhi Traders
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC209(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The question that arises in this tax case is whether the Tribunal has committed an error in entertaining the appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, refusing to condone the delay in filing an appeal. This question is concluded by a decision of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Madhavan Nair [1982] 49 STC 244 wherein this Court has held that an order refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal and consequently rejecting the appeal on the ground that it is belated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is an order under section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and as section 36 provides for an appeal against any order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal, an appeal will lie against such order to the Tribunal under that section. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal appears to be right. The case is, therefore, dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dadha and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Mad)287; [1983]142ITR792(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee herein is a registered firm carrying on business in pharmaceuticals, chemicals, drugs and money-lending. For the assessment year 1971-72, corresponding to the previous year ended October 30, 1970, it filed a return showing an income of Rs. 1,22,180. While going through the accounts of the assessee, the ITO found that the capital account of the partners showed a credit of l/3rd share of sale proceeds of the house property Nos. 161 and 162, Nyniappa Naicken Street, Madras. The said two properties had been purchased on June 14, 1948, and February 1, 1950, by the firm and the income from these properties were being assessed in the hands of the firm until the assessment year 1964-65. During the accounting year ended November 4, 1964, entries had been made in the books of the firm removing these properties from the part-nership assets and showing them as the individual properties of the partners and for the income from the property there has also been a return fi...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan Vs. Ayyasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ148
ORDERV. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is an application for excusing the delay in filing a second appeal. The judgment sought to be appealed from was passed by the First Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore. In that appeal, the petitioner was the respondent. The petitioner was not present in person or by counsel at the time when the appeal was called. Hence the appeal was heard and decided in his absence. The petitioner then filed before the Sub-Court an application under Order 41, Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte determination of the appeal. The petitioner explained that at the material time he was suffering from jaundice, and this illness prevented him from appearing at the hearing of the appeal. The Sub-Court was not however, satisfied with this explanation. It accordingly rejected the petitioner's application. The petitioner filed an appeal in m that order to this Court in C.M.A. No. 617 of 1981. That appeal was heard and dismissed. A few days thereafter, t...
Tag this Judgment!Balakrishnan Vs. Ayyaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad17
ORDER1. This is an application for excusing the delay in filing a second appeal The judgment sought to be appealed from was passed by the First Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore. In that appeal, the petitioner was the respondent. The petitioner was not present in person or by counsel at the time when the appeal was called. Hence the appeal was heard and decided in his absence. The petitioner then filed before the Sub Court an application under Order 41. Rule 21, C. P. C. to set said the ex party determination of the appeal. The petitioner explained that at the material time he was suffering from jaundice, and this illness prevented him from appearing at the hearing of the appeal. The Sub Court was not, however, satisfied with this explanation. It accordingly rejected the petitioner's application. The petitioner filed an appeal from that order to this Court in C. M. A. No. 617 of 1981. That appeal was heard and dismissed. A few days thereafter, the petitioner presented his second appeal i...
Tag this Judgment!R. Indira Vs. Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad380
Ramanujam, J.1. The appellant herein is a stage carriage operator in South Arcot District. The Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot at Cuddalore, the first respondent hearing invited applications, under S. 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the grant of a stage carriage permit in respect of one bus to ply on the town service route Panrutti to Arasur (via) Gandhi Road, Padupettai and Anathur with independent shuttle trips between Panrutti and Akkadavalli (via) Gandhi Road, Pudupet, Chinnapet and Thiruthuraiyur. The appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein and five others applied for the grant of the permit. All the applications were notified under S. 57 (3) of the Act, and they were taken up for hearing on 26-4-1979. After hearing, orders were served. The orders were passed on 28-8-1979, granting two permits on the route instead of one as notified by the 1st respondent as set out in his Order is as follows:-'Now, I find that traffic potentiali...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT34(Mad)
1. The petitioner is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is engaged in the business among others of manufacturing fibres/tops. The item falls under sub-item I of them 18 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The normal processes of manufacturing fibres/tops is from raw materials. The raw materials used are Di Methyl Terephthalate (for short DMT) and Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG). The first stage of the process is the production of what is called wet chips. The next process is spinning. In between they get what is called Fibres/solid undrawn waste. Ultimately, they get the end product viz., fibre/tops. They also get fibrous drawn waste. As already stated, the fibre/tops manufactured by the original process are subject to excise duty under sub-item I of Item 18 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It may also be mentioned that the company manufactures fibre/tops from waste. For the manufacture of fibre/tops u...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyasami Pillai and anr. Vs. Subbaraya Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ340
S. Natarajan, J.1. Plaintiffs 2 and 3, who succeeded before the trial Court, but lost their case before the lower appellate Court, are the appellants. The suit giving rise to the appeal was for redemption of a mortgage, or in the alternative, for specific performance of an agreement or reconveyance and for recovery of possession of the suit property.2. The case of the appellants is as follows The suit property originally belonged to the appellants (plaintiffs 2 and 3) and time mother, late Adhilakshmi Animal. Adhilakshmi Ammal created an usufructuary mortgage over the property on 1st November, 1939 under Exhibit A-1 in favour of Arunachalam Pillai, father of the first respondent. Subsequently, in order to discharge the mortgage, Adhilakshmi Ammal as well as the appellants executed a mortgage deed by conditional sale under the original of Exhibit A-2, dated 7th October, 1944 and in terms of Exhibit A-2, the earlier mortgage was discharged. Consequently, a relationship of creditor and de...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnu Naicken Vs. Rangasami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ494
ORDER1. This is a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, clubbing S.C. Nos. 59 and 60 of 1979 on his file. 2. For an incident that took place on 21-4-1978 in Akkampalayan village, a charge sheet was filed in S.C. No. 59 of 1981 the first accused being the Vendikkara Muthu Naicken who is dead and fifteen other accused. Regarding the same incident Chinnammal, wife of the deceased preferred a complaint against seventeen persons which is the subject matter of S.C. No. 60 of 1981. Vendikkara Muthu Naicken who is an accused in S.C. No. 59 of 1979 is also an accused in S.C. No. 60 of 1981. On account of his death there are 16 accused in S.C. No. 60 of 1979. Except one Kondappan who is A-9 in S.C. No. 59 of 1979 all others are included as accused in S.C. No. 60 of 1979. A-9 Chinnu Naicken and A-10 Rangasamy in S.C. No. 60 of 1979 are not the accused in the other case and the rest of the accused are common in both the cases. 3. A...
Tag this Judgment!Divisional Engineer, Vellore, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. G. Mall ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: (1983)IILLJ354Mad; (1983)IIMLJ213
1. These writ petitions have been filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, through the Divisional Engineer/Acquisition, Vellore Electricity Undertaking, questioning the orders of the Labour Court in Claim Petition Nos. 299 and 389 of 1975, on its file. 2. The circumstances under which the writ petitions have been filed may briefly be stated. The electrical undertaking run by the Vellore Electric Corporation, Ltd., was acquired under the Tamil Nadu Private Electricity Supply Undertakings Acquisition Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1973), with effect from 7th January, 1974. By virtue of this undertaking having been taken over by the Government of Tamil Nadu and transferred later to the Tamil Nadu and transferred later to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the employees of the Vellore Electric Corporation, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company), automatically became the employees of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board subject to certain conditions. On 26th November, 1973, the workmen...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Naidu and ors. Vs. Rajalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad229
ORDER1. Mr.Jamal Mohamed, learned counsel for the petitioners says that he is authorised to sign on behalf Chandran, Kuppammal, Pichandiammal and Raniammal and they have not signed in the compromise memo. The signatures of Rajalakshmi Ammal, the first respondent, Venkatesan, 2nd petitioner and the left thumb impression of Krishna Naidu, the 1st petitioner are found. As already seen, the signatures of petitions 3 to 6 namely, Chandran, Kuppammal, Pichandiammal and Raniammal are not found. They have not signed, Mr.Jamal Mohamed, learned counsel submits that under Order 23, Rule 3, this Court for sufficient reasons can record the compromise if the learned counsel for the petitions has signed on behalf of the petitioners. This Court is now bent upon the presence of all the parties and the signatures of all the parties in the joint memo especially when it is now disputed by one Bakthavatchalal Naidu, the second respondent in C.R.P.No.2334/80 that he had purchased the property in question in...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »