Chennai Court September 1982 Judgments
Madura Coats Ltd. Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1982
Reported in: 1983LC481D(Madras); 1986(23)ELT63(Mad); (1983)IIMLJ123
Gokulakrishnan, J.1. All these writ petitions raise a common question of law and they are for issue of a writ of mandamus except W.P. No. 2466 of 1978, which is for the issue of a writ of certiorari. 2. The facts of the case in all these writ petitions are similar. The petitioner is M/s. Madura Coats Limited in all these writ petitions. They are manufacturing mill cloth and also cotton sewing thread among other things. The cotton sewing thread is mostly intended for export and some varieties of cotton sewing thread are made out of imported cotton. Between 28th June, 1973, and 26th March, 1974, the petitioner exported cotton sewing thread and filed the shipping bills for clearance of goods. They also made a claim for drawback as per annexure A appended to each petition. The third respondent therein, viz., the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, rejected the claim for drawback on the ground that there was no drawback rate for sewing thread in the drawback schedule. Since this has not...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1982
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2184(Mad)
ORDERPadmanabhan, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the porcelain shells which are used in the manufacture of lightning arresters by the respondents, Messrs W. S. Insulators of India Ltd., are liable to excise duty under tariff item 23-B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act. 2. The respondents manufacture, among others, lightning arresters with the technical collaboration of Messrs Westing House Electric International Company, U.S.A. For the purpose of manufacturing the lightning arrester the respondents also manufacture what is called a shell made of porcelain; shells are manufactured according to a particular design for use in the manufacture of lightning arresters. The appellants sought to levy excise duty on these porcelain shells on the basis that they constituted porcelainware within the meaning of tariff item 23-B of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act. It may be stated in this context that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeswari Vs. Vasumal Lalchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad97; (1983)1MLJ52
ORDER1. The landlady is the revision petitioner, who filed an application for eviction of the respondent from the petition mentioned premises on the ground that he had committed willful default in the payment of rent for the period commencing from 1st February, 1976 to 30th June 1976. The application for eviction came itself to be filed on 27th July, 1976. In August 1976, the respondent sent a money-order. That money-order having been refused a demand draft was sent on 25th August, 1976, which was received by the landlady on 30th Aug., 1976. Under these circumstances, the plea of the tenant that he had not committed willful default in the payment of rent since the payment had later been accepted, was rejected by the Rent Controller and he held that whatever might have been the subsequent conduct of the tenant, in so far as absolutely no explanation was offered for the non-payment of rent for the period covered by the application for eviction, it was supine or callous in difference on t...
Tag this Judgment!Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-i Vs. A. Abbas, A. Abdul Khad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1982
Reported in: [1984]149ITR597(Mad)
1. These four tax cases arise out of the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in four appeals filed by two assesses, one A. Abbas and his brother, A. Abdul Khader, both of whom happened to be partners in a business firm for two assessment years. On July, 12, 1967, the Enforcement Directorate conducted a search of the business premises of the firm in which the said two assesses were partners. During the said search, a sale deed dated, July 14, 1966, relating to premises No. 29, Motilal Street, T. Nagar, in favour of the wives of the two assesses jointly for a consideration of Rs. 41,900 was seized. The said document showed that the stamp papers to the value of Rs. 4,100 had been used for that document. A similar sale deed dated May, 1, 1967, relating to premises No. 33, Sarojini Street, Madras, purchased for a consideration of Rs. 42,000 was also recovered from the premises along with a receipt dated April 11, 1967, issues by one Shri K. N. V. Narayanan to Shri Ab...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnan Servai Vs. Arulmighu Kaliamman Temple, Batlagundu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad142; (1983)1MLJ19
1. The defendant in O. S. No. 38 of 1976 on the file of the district Munsif of Dindigul is the appellant in this second appeal. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of possession and for damages from 1-8-1975. There is no dispute that the defendant was a tenant of the suit property. There is no document of lease exhibited in the case. Admittedly, the tenancy was not either for agricultural or for manufacturing purposes. Normally, in such a case, the tenancy will have to be determined by fifteen days' notice expiring with the end of a month of the tenancy. In the instant case, what happened is, the defendant on 10-7-1975, in the account books of the plaintiff, in unequivocal terms, agreed to vacate the suit property by 1-8-1975. He did not adhere to this promise but wanted a further extension of fifteen days' time under Ex. A-2 dated 2-8-1975.. Obviously, this was not acceptable to the plaintiff and the plaintiff issued a notice on...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Subramaniam Vs. the General Manager, Integral Coach Factory and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ304
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J., dismissing Writ Petition No. 6570 of 1981.2. The appellant filed the said writ petition for a mandamus directing the first respondent, the General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, Madras, to forbear from enforcing the order dated 9th June, 1981, in which the second respondent herein has been promoted to officiate as Welfare Inspector, Grade I and the appellant has been ordered to continue as officiating Welfare Inspector, Grade I. The said order had been passed in the following circumstances: The appellant was recruited to the Railway Service on 18th August, 1949, initially as clerk, Grade II and after being promoted from stage to stage, he came to be promoted as Welfare Inspector, Grade II in the year 1974 in which post he was confirmed on 16th January, 1976. The next higher post is Welfare Inspector, Grade I on the pay scale of Rs. 700-900, which is a selection post. In the selection held on 6th March, 1979 a ...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Company Limited Vs. V. Vasantha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1982
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ204
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. third in M.C.O.P. No. 38 of 1979 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Coimbatore, is the appellant, Petitioners 1 to 3 and respondents 1 and 2 before it are the respondents herein. Ranking of parties is, as before the Tribunal.2. Petitioners claimed that they are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 75,000 for the death of one Vyasarao, who died in a scooter accident on 13.9.1978, on the Avinashi Road, Peelamedu, Coimbatore. They stated as follows: On the fateful day when Vyasarao the husband of first petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 and 3, was travelling in the pillion of the scooter T.N.B. 5601, which was then being driven by the first respondent and belonging to the second respondent, it skidded, and as a result thereof, he was thrown off the pillion and he sustained injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. This accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. P.J. Irani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1982
Reported in: (1983)30CTR(Mad)155; [1983]143ITR541(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue the following question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, under the provisions of s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of urban land tax to the extent of Rs. 16,130.52 relating to the period July 1, 1963, to June 30, 1970, was an admissible deduction in arriving at the income under the head 'Other sources' for the assessment year 1971-72 ?' 2. The dispute in this case relates to the computation of income from property jointly held by the assessee and certain others for the assessment year 1971-72, corresponding to the accounting year edged on March 31, 1971. The assessee has 24 per cent, interest in the joint property, which has been let on rent to others, the assessee computed the income to be assessed from house property in the assessment year 1971-72 by deducting two amo...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-ii, Madras Vs. K.S. Ranganatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1982
Reported in: [1984]150ITR619(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following common question of law has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras bench, for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the surplus lands belonging to the assessees under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, should be valued only on the basis of the compensation receivable under the said Tamil Nadu Act ?' 2. These references relate to the wealth-tax assessments made on various assessees determining the wealth as on April 13, 1971, the valuation date, at various figures. The dispute between the Revenue and assessees relate to the determination of their farm wealth. During the assessment years, the assessees owned agricultural lands as detailed below : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assessee Retai...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppu Boyan and anr. Vs. Sengottaiyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad314; (1983)1MLJ193
ORDER1. The order of the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram in R. E. A. 156 of 1982 in R. E. P. 301 of 1981 in O. S. 635 of 1972 is questioned in the above revision.2. It appears from the facts of the case and also as argued by the respective counsel appearing for the parties, that the respondent herein filed O. S.635 of 1972 before the District Munsif's Court, Namakkal, against the petitioners therein. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The plaintiff, who is the respondent herein obtained a decree against the petitioners, who were the defendants in the suit, for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 12-6-1972. In pursuance of the decree obtained by the plaintiff E. P. 301 of 1981 was filed before the executing Court to attach and to sell the property belonging to the judgment-debtors situate in S. No. 20/3 Moolakurichi Village measuring 3.93 acres with a well and pumpset.The judgment-debtors having received the notice of the execution petition filed R.E.A. 156 of 1982, where...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »