Chennai Court August 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.A. Muthumanickam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1982
Reported in: [1985]155ITR351(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee is this case is an individual. For the assessment year 1970-71, he filed a return on October 28, 1970, declaring two gift deeds, one in favour of his wife and another in favour of his daughter and valuing them at Rs. 19,925. Subsequently, on October 10, 1972, he filed a revised return with which a statement was enclosed, where in the assessee stated that he had executed two other settlements, one dated February 21, 1970, in respect of agricultural land worth Rs. 81,000 in favour of his brother's daughter, Pramodhini, aged 8 years and another dated March 4, 1970, in respect of agricultural land worth Rs. 76,000 in favour of his brother's daughter, Anuradha, aged 4 years, but they were inoperative as the donees were not prepared to accept the gifts and, consequently, there were no taxable gifts in respect of these two documents. It was also pointed out by the assessee in that statement that even though these two settlements were registered on March 30, 1970,...
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Valambal Vs. the Idol of Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami Temple at Patt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad287
Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The appellant by name Valambal claimed patta under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 (Act 26 of 1963) for an extent of 31 acres 54 cents in survey numbers 116/2,231/4, 149/4 and 97/2 in the village called Pattavaithalai in Tiruchirapalli district. A few facts may be stated to understand the real crux of the matter involved in this case. 2. On 17-1-1948, the Madras Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act (Madras Act 31 of 1947) came into force. Since then the services of Devadasis were never required by the temples. The appellant, claiming that she is the adopted daughter of one Angamuthu who is the last service holder of the Devadasi service, wanted to get the patta in her favour. According to there appellant, her brother by name Palaniandi forcibly took possession of the property from the appellant during 1948. The appellant filed a suit in O. S. 26 of 1955 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchira...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Cycles of India, Ambattur, Madras Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: 1983LC202D(Madras); 1983(12)ELT681(Mad)
Venugopal J.1. The appellant-writ petitioner is a manufacturer of cycles. Item 35 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) reads as follows - 'T.I. 35 Cycles, Parts of cycles other than Motor Cycles, namely (i) Free wheels ... Rs. 2 each(ii) Rims ... Rs. 4 each.'2. By Finance Act, 1975, Item 68 was introduced in the First Schedule to the Act with effect from 1-3-1975 and it reads as follows : 'T.I. 68 All other goods, not elsewhere specified. All other goods, not elsewhere specified, manufactured in a factory but excluding - (a) 1% ad valorem.' 3. By Finance Act of 1976, while retaining Item 68, the word 'cycles' in item 35 was deleted and it was as under : 'T.I. 35 Cycle parts Parts of cycles other than motor cycle, namely - (i) Free wheels ... Rs. 2 each(ii) Rims ... Rs. 4 each.'Till the introduction of item 68 on 1-3-1975, there was no levy of excise duty on cycles cleared from the factory in fully assembled condition...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Madura Coats Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1982
Reported in: 1984(2)ECC196; 1986(23)ELT157(Mad)
Venugopal, J.1. The respondent-writ petitioner is a manufacturer of textiles having composite mills both for spinning and weaving. It manufactures, among other things, cotton nylon duck made out of nylon and cotton and used in the manufacture of P.V.C. belting which in turn is used as a conveyer belt in coal mines. This product is manufactured in accordance with the specifications and requirements of a few customers among whom Dunlop India Ltd., and National Rubber . (hereinafter to be referred to as principal purchasers) are the principal purchasers. They used to enter into contracts with the respondent-writ petitioner for the supply of nylon cotton belting duck. The percentage of nylon content in the belting duck will range between 10 and 60, and the nylon was supplied by Dunlop India Ltd. by importing them under actual user's licence whereas National Rubber . supplied indigenous nylon. Both the nylon and cotton are blended together according to the specifications of the purchaser to...
Tag this Judgment!Amaliammal Vs. Rayarswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1719
1. This appeal by a private party is against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, acquitting the first accused who has been charged with an offence under Section 494, I.P.C. and accused 2 and 3 who have been charged for offences under Section 494 read with Section 109, I.P.C. 2. The appellant is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent, Rayarswami and a daughter, Clara was born of the wedlock. The parties belong to Christian Catholic community. The allegation against the first accused was that during the subsistence of his marriage with the appellant he contracted a second marriage with the second accused. Sundarammal, and therefore, has committed an offence punishable under Section 484, I.P.C. The marriage is said to have been performed in the house of the third accused at Thavasimadai at the instigation of the third accused according to the appellant, the first accused was in illicit intimacy with the second accused and was living with her ...
Tag this Judgment!The Management, Southern Textiles Limited, Coimbatore Vs. the United T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ435Mad
1. The management of Southern Textiles Ltd., Coimbatore has filed this writ petition to quash the order passed by the first respondent, the State, referring a dispute between the management and its workmen for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Madras. The dispute is 'whether the demand of the workmen to fix a ratio between heirs of workmen and outsiders in the recruitment for employment in the mill is justified and if so to fix the ratio for the purpose. The facts leading to impugned order of reference may be briefly set out as follows. The management runs a textiles mill at Sulur. It employs about 300 permanent workmen. The second respondent is one of the trade unions representing some of the employees of the management. On 4th January, 1978, the second respondent and some other trade unions sent a communication to the management stating that in the matter of fresh recruitment preference should be given to the heirs of persons in employment of the mills. The communication contai...
Tag this Judgment!A. Narasimhan Vs. N. Janardhanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ164
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act is petitioner. The respondent herein is the landlord. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on two grounds: (1) requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction; and (2) wilful default in the payment of rents for 15 months.2. The tenant contested the petition for eviction. The Rent Controller countenanced only the second ground viz., wilful default in the payment of rents and ordered eviction of the tenant. The tenant appealed and the Appellate Authority has also chosen to confirm the order of eviction.3. Mr. S. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant would submit that there are significant features brought out in evidence, which would demonstrate that the tenant could not be characterised as a wilful defaulter in the payment of rent. First the learned Counsel refers to the previous proc...
Tag this Judgment!K. Jayaram Mudaliar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1982
Reported in: [1983]53STC280(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case is a dealer in stationery goods. For the assessment year 1975-76 his total and taxable turnovers were determined at Rs. 11,11,956 (sic) and Rs. 10,72,304 respectively as against the reported turnovers of Rs. 12,78,110.38 and Rs. 9,75,705.78. The assessing officer made certain additions to the reported turnovers, but we are concerned in this case only with the addition of Rs. 73,278.67 as sales turnover of binding materials taxable at 4 per cent multi-point. The assessee questioned the said addition by filing an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The said appeal having been dismissed the assessee went before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Before the Tribunal the assessee contended that there was no sale of binding materials by the assessee to the binders, and therefore the entire addition of Rs. 73,278.67 alleged to be the sales turnover of binding materials was not justified. The Tribunal held that there has been in fact...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Perumal Naicker Vs. Narayanaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1982
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ64
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. An interesting question arises in this civil revision petition. The facts are as follows: The petitioner as plaintiff preferred S.C.S.No. 23 of 1980 for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 463.25. The defendant (respondent-herein), admittedly, had borrowed a sum of Rs. 600 from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in his favour on 27th January, 1975, agreeing to Day the principal together with interest at 12% p.a. In view of the publication of Ordinance 5 of 1978, S.C.S.No. 154 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kovilpatti the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 392.95, that is, half towards principal and interest, and by passing the receipt Exhibit B-1 the claim was settled on 14th November, 1978 and the claim was satisfied. Thereafter, Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 came into force. As per the provisions of the said Act, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount as recited in the promissory note. Giving credit to the amount received under Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Janaki Ammal Ayya Nadar Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1982
Reported in: [1985]153ITR159(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a public charitable trust. For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee had a book profit of Rs. 69,152. It claimed exemption from tax under s. 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the ground that it had spent during the year a sum of Rs. 8,859 for purchase of land, payment of income-tax to the extent of Rs. 1,21,540 and investment in the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Bond Loan to the extent of Rs 15,000 and that above three items should be taken as disbursal of its income for charitable purposes. The ITO did not accept the assessee's claim on the ground that the purchase of land, expenditure on income-tax and investment in the Tamil Nadu State Electricity Bond did not constitute application of the assessee's income for charitable purposes, relying on s. 11(4) of the Act. Then the assessee's taxable income was computed by the ITO at Rs. 69,152. 2. On appeal by the assessee, the AAC held that leaving out the amounts spent on construction of buildings...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »