Chennai Court July 1982 Judgments

Senthilve and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1983Mad316; (1983)2MLJ368

ORDER1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are retail dealers. In the year 1973, the Government promulgated the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order 1973, in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The order came into force on the 14th Nov., 1973. The order was promulgated for ensuring an equitable distribution of kerosene at fair price. The order provided for appointment of wholesalers and retailers and earmarking the areas of supply for each of them. Under the provisions of the order no person shall start afresh or carry on business as a wholesaler except in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued by the licensing authority. In order to carry on the business as a realer in the sale of kerosene, a person has to get himself registered as such by the licencing authority. The registration once granted will continue to be in force until it is cancelled by the licencing authority. Clause 5 (8) of th...

N. Rajakumar Vs. the Management of Indian Bank, Madras

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1983Mad145; (1983)1MLJ4

Ramanujam, J.1. Since the issues involved in both these writ appeals are substantially the same, they are dealt with together. W. A. 363 of 1982 arises out of the judgment of Mohan, J. in W. P. 3796 of 1982, and W. A. 366 of 1982 arises out of the judgment of the same learned Judge in W. P. 3797 of 1982.2. The first writ petition has been filed by one Rajkumar for the issue of a writ of certiorified Mandamus for quashing the circular dated 19-2-1982, issued by the Management of the Indian Bank and to direct the said Bank to allow him to continue to do his business as Tiny Deposit Collector by enumerating new customers to earn his commission. The other writ petition has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Bank's Deposit Collectors Union for quashing a somewhat similar circular issued by the Canara Bank and for a direction forbearing the said Bank from giving effect to its circular so far as it relates to the Nithyanidhi Deposit Collectors.3. The circumstances under which the impugned circulars...

Sri Bharat Traders, Represented by Its Partners and ors. Vs. S.R. Visw ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1983)2MLJ1

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tirupathur, North Arcot, in O.S. No. 66 of 1976. The defendants are the appellants and the plaintiff is the respondent. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of amounts due on two promissory notes with future interest and costs. The defendants did contest the suit by filing a written statement contending for dismissal of the suit with costs. One redeeming feature was that the defendants deposited the suit claim on the first hearing date itself. Hence, the only contest was with reference to the award of costs in the suit. The Court below has discussed the factors which justify the award of costs and has accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for costs alone. It is found that there were, in fact, demands for payment earlier to the filing of the suit. The defendants have not disputed the demands made by the plaintiff. The third defendant, examined as D.W. 1, admitted the ...

Vivekananda Middle School, by Its Manager Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1983)2MLJ280

G. Ramanujam, J.1. Since the parties in both the appeals are more or less the same and they are interconnected, they are dealt with together.2. The appellant in these appeals is the Manager of a Middle School, called 'Vivekananda Middle School' at Muthukrishnapuram, Kadayanallur, P.O., Tenkasi Taluk, Tiruvelveli District. In the said school there was a permanent Secondary Grade teacher by name M. Ramiah handling VIII standard. The said teacher applied for leave from 1st September, 1976 to 30th September, 1976, on the production of medical certificate from Dr. Sailapathy of the Government Medical College Hospital Palayamkottai. On 1st October, 1976, he wanted to rejoin duty, but the management insisted on the production of a medical certificate that he was fit to rejoin duty. When such certificate was not produced, the management did not allow the teacher to join duty. On the ground that the management's action in not allowing him to join duty amounted to termination of his service, the...

R. Baluswami Chettiar Vs. the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Ct) an ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1983]52STC294(Mad)

G. Ramanujam, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order of Mohan, J., in Writ Petition No. 6383 of 1980, dismissing the case in limine.2. The appellant herein reported a total taxable turnover of Rs. 12,54,768.27 in the A-2 returns for the assessment year 1977-78. However, they did not produce the accounts for final check in spite of notices. Therefore, a notice to assess to the best of judgment on a taxable turnover of Rs. 18,82,152.00 was issued to the appellant. The assessee neither filed objections nor produced accounts. They applied for time for adjournment on the ground that the connected records are not ready due to illness of the auditor. On the ground that the appellant is dragging on the production of the accounts, the adjournment sought for by the appellant was refused and he was assessed on a best judgment basis on a total taxable turnover of Rs. 18,82,152.00 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act by an order dated 19th February, 1979. The appellan...

T.K.V.S. Vidyapoornachary Sons and ors. Vs. M.R. Krishnamachary (09.07 ...

Court: Chennai

Balausbrahmanyan, J.1. After hearing learned counsel at some length, I have come to the conclusion that the civil revision petition need not have been filed at all. Although this is one manner of stating the legal position, I will have to deal with the revision, as it has been preferred, in order to be able to say that it need not have been filed. The following are the circumstances in which the revision has been filed. The respondent instituted a suit against the petitioners herein. It was a suit for goods sold and delivered. The respondent prayed for a decree against the defendants in a certain sum. The defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement. In their pleadings in defence the defendants not only denied the suit claim, but also made a counter claim as against the plaintiff. Issues were framed in the suit on the above pleadings between the parties. The suit was set for trial. But on the date of hearing, the defendants did not appear either in person or by counsel. ...

Ajantha Travels Vs. State Transport Authority and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1984)1MLJ244

ORDERS. Padmanabhan, J.1. This writ petition is filed to quash the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the second respondent herein, on 17th July, 1981 in M. V. A. No. 12 of 1981. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as follows:2. The petitioner M/s. Ajantha Travels are contract carriage and stage carriage operators in Pondicherry State. They obtained a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Pondicherry to Karaikal for a period of four months from 2nd May, 1979 to 1st September, 1979. On 19th May, 1979, the vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-I, flying squad, Tiruchirapalli. It was discovered that the vehicle was overloaded by 14 passengers and that R. C. and I. G. permits were not carried for check. A charge memo. was served on the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the permit should not be suspended or cancelled for the said violation. At the time of hearing before the S...

Ajantha Travels, Pondicherry Vs. State Transport Authority, Pondicherr ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1983Mad365

ORDER1. This writ petition is filed to quash the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the second respondent herein, on 17-7-1981 in MVA No. 12/81. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as follows:-The petitioner M/s. Ajantha Travels are contract carriage and stage carriage operators in Pondicherry State. They obtained a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage on the route Pondicherry to Karaikal for a period of four months from 2-5-1979 to 1-9-1979. On 19-5-1979 the vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade I, flying squad, Thiruchirapalli. It was discovered that the vehicle was over loaded by 14 passengers and that the R.C. and I. C. permits were not carried for check. A charge memo was served on the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the permit should not be suspended or cancelled for the said violation. At the time of hearing before the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry on 23-8-1980 it ...

The Commissioner for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1983)2MLJ274

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 183 of 1975 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate judge of Tirunelveli, are the appellants in this appeal. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs laid the suit under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, XXII of 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for setting aside the order of the second defendant dated 31st December, 1974, and for a declaration that the plaintiff trust and the properties belonging to it do not constitute a religious institution as defined in the Act and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and subordinates from enforcing the provisions of the Act in pursuance of the order of the second defendant, referred to above. The plaintiffs initially resorted to the process under Section 63 (a) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras-34, in O.A. No. 41 of 1968...

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Chamundeswari Enterprises

Court: Chennai

Reported in: [1983]52STC124(Mad)

Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case has sold the lorry TNS 6251 for Rs. 60,000 during the assessment year 1978-79. The assessing officer assessed certain other turnover as also Rs. 60,000 representing sale value of lorry at 15 per cent for 1978-79 on the ground that the sale of the lorry is a first sale in the State. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has agreed with the assessing officer and has upheld the assessment on the turnover of Rs. 60,000. The matter was taken to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and before the Tribunal it was contended that the lorry TNS 6251 was purchased from Mercantile Credit Corporation, Coimbatore, for Rs. 39,000 by his vendor and that as the lorry has suffered tax already the second sale in the hands of the assessee is not exigible to tax. The revenue, on the other hand, contended that the seller, Mercantile Credit Corporation, is not a dealer in trade and that as the assessee's vendor had not paid tax on his sale it cannot be said that...