Chennai Court September 1982 Judgments
K.A.S. Khader Sahib and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: AIR1983Mad383
ORDER1. The substantial point taken in this writ petition is that, by issuing an errate beyond the period contemplated under proviso to S. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State cannot acquire the lands involved in the errate issued on 20-12-1978 and again by another errata dated 27-2-1980.2. This is an interesting matter in which land acquisition proceedings have been pending for more than seven years, and the State has committed more than one error in acquiring the lands of the petitioners. Having been acquainted with the procedure to be adopted under Land Acquisition Act, which was framed as early as 1894, it is startling to note that such procedural errors could be committed by the State and to the detriment of the citizen.3. The first notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was made on 14-3-1973, and an extent of 35.6 cents in S. No. 910/3 in Surampatti village in Erode taluk, which is involved in this writ petition, wa...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.S. Khader Sahib and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ350
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. The substantial point taken in this writ petition is that, by issuing an errata beyond the period contemplated under proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (I of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State cannot acquire the lands involved in the errata issued on 28th December, 1978 and again by another errata dated 27th February, 1980.2. This is an interesting matter in which land acquisition proceedings have been pending for more than seven years, and the State has committed more than one error in acquiring the lands of the petitioners. Having been acquainted with the procedure to be adopted under the Land Acquisition Act, which was framed as early as 1894, it is startling to note that such procedural errors could be committed by the State and to the detriment of the citizen.3. The first notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was made on 14th March, 1973, and an extent of 25.6 cents in S. No. 9103 in Surampatti village in Erode talu...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatesan Vs. the Government of Pondicherry Represented by the Sec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ159
Venugopal, J. 1. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. He was appointed as Store Keeper in the Wood Working Unit cum Training Centre, Pondicherry, with effect from 18th March, 1965, as per the order of the Director of Industries, Pondicherry, dated 30th March, 1965. The Wood Working Unit was inspected and stock verified by Thiru T.S. Vijayaraghavan, Stores Superintendent, Pay and Accounts Office, Pondicherry, from May, 1969 to June, 1969. As per the inventory taken by him there was shortage of stock worth about Rs. 93,542.91. The matter was enquired into by the Vigilance Department, Pondicherry, at the instance of the Director of Industries. As a result of the said enquiry, the Director of Industries, who is also the disciplinary authority, framed four charges against the appellant and held an enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Out of the four charges levelled against the appellant, the Enquiry Officer...
Tag this Judgment!State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Vaithi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1565
Maheswaran, J.1. The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, acquitting the accused who has been charged for an offence under Sections 7 (i) and 16(1)(a) (i) read with Section 2 (ia) (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.2. P. W. 1 Food Inspector of Abishega-puram Town Panchayat, purchased for analysis 750 ml. of milk which is a mixture of cow's and buffalo's milk for Rs. 1.15 from the accused, Vaithi, kept for sale on 26-5-1978, at about 12-30 p.m. at Colony Main Road, Crawford, p. W. 1 divided the milk so purchased into three equal parts and sealed them in three clean dry bottles and sent one such bottle to the Analyst. The report of the Analyst showed that the sample was deficient in solids-non-fat to the extent of at least 41 per cent. The Food Inspector laid the complaint.3. The defence was that the milk sold to the Food Inspector was not intended for sale. The Magistrate observed that...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. V.S. Sv. Meenakshi Achi.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1982
Reported in: [1984]55CompCas545(Mad); [1984]147ITR14(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J. 1. The question in this case in whether the assessee is entitled to exemption from wealth-tax of the value of 4,799 equity shares of Rs. 100 each in a private company called Abhirami Cotton Mills Private Ltd., in her assessments for 1966-67 to 1970-71 2. The claim for exemption was made under s. 5(1)(xx) of the W.T. Act, 1957. It was urged that these shares formed part of the company's initial issue of the equity share capital and that initial issue was made by the company after March 31, 1964. It was accordingly urged that s. 5(1)(xx) applied. 3. Section 5(1)(xx) as it was in force during the relevant period, exempted from wealth-tax : 'The value of any equity shares held by the assessee in any company of the type referred to in clause (d) of section 45, where such shares form part of the initial issue of equity share capital made by the company after of March 31, 1964, for a period of five successive assessments years commencing with the assessment year next foll...
Tag this Judgment!Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. B. Kamalamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1982
Reported in: [1984]148ITR434(Mad)
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This is a reference under the E.D. Act, 1953. The question is whether, for the purpose of estate duty leviable on the estate of a deceased Hindu, a reasonable provisions for marriage of his unmarried daughter can be allowed as a deductible debt 2. The deceased, in this case, died possessed of an estate worth Rs. 4,17,844. The estate comprised of both ancestral property and self-acquisitions. The deceased was survived by his wife and a minor daughter aged 17. The deceased's widow filed an estate duty account with the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty. She claimed, inter alia, a deduction for Rs. 72,000 as provision for the marriage of the daughter. The Asst. Controller, however, negatived this claim. He took the view that the obligation to get the daughter married was a personal obligation of the deceased and was not a charge on the estate. The Appellate Controller and the Appellate Tribunal, however, took a different view. They held that under the Hindu law a n...
Tag this Judgment!S. Radhakrishnan and anr. Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1982
Reported in: (1983)36CTR(Mad)25; [1985]156ITR538(Mad)
1. All these revisions can be dealt with under a common order. It is enough if I note the facts in Civil Revision Petition No. 129 of 1980. The revision petitioner is an assessee on the file of the ITO, Companies Circle IV, Coimbatore. He objected to the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 34,375 representing gross dividends from M/s. B.M.S. (P.) Ltd., for assessment year 1972-73. His case was that by virtue of section 104 of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter be referred to as "the Act", this amount had suffered tax because it was undistributed profits at the hands of the company. Where, therefore, after such suffering of tax it is distributed to the qua shareholders of the company, the further tax sought to be levied, will amount to double taxation. This claim was rejected by the Revenue as seen from the proceedings of the Commissioner of Income-tax by the ultimate order in revision dated March 30, 1979. It is his which is sought to be revised under article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. In ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Vijayalakshmi Gunny Mundy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1982
Reported in: [1984]57STC210(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The only question that arises in this tax case is as to whether the respondent herein has sold empty gunnies to local purchasers as well as outside State purchasers or whether he acted as a buying agent for local as well as outside State buyers. The assessing authority held that when submitting his tender for the purchase of gunnies from Pamani Fertilizers Limited, he tendered in his individual capacity and it is only after the tender was accepted he has sold the goods to the local as well as outside State purchasers and therefore the assessee is liable to pay sales tax on its sales of empty gunnies to various dealers, both local and outside State. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee acted only as a buying agent when he submitted a tender for the purchase of empty gunnies from Pamani Fertilizers Limited and therefore the sale of gunny bags should be taken to have been by Pamani Fertilizers Limited to the purchasers and there is no actual sale of gunny bags b...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Radhambal Ammal. (Legal Representative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1982
Reported in: [1985]153ITR440(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. These are six petitions under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act. 1961, for issuing a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case on the following common question of law : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the status of the assessee should be taken as Hindu undivided family ?' 2. The assessee in all these cases in one and the same person. Up to the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee submitted returns under the I.T. Act showing his status as an individual and the authorities had assessed him only as an individual on the basis of the returns submitted by him. However, for the assessment year 1970-71, the assessee filed a return showing his status as the karta of the HUF. That was not accepted by the ITO and the assessments for that year and for the earlier years 1967-68 and 1968-69 were made on the assessee treating him as an individual. Aggrieved by the said assessments, the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Visalakshi and Visalakshi Krishnamurthy Vs. Muthiah Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ447
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. Both these revisions can be dealt with under a common order. On 9th March, 1973, O.S. No. 191 of 1973, District Munsif's Court, Tenkasi, was filed on the foot of a promissory note, dated 2nd September, 1972 for a sum of Rs. 5,000. Pending the suit, the properties belonging to the defendants were attached before judgment in I.A. No. 381 of 1973. On 23rd April, 1973, the suit was decreed, on submission by defendants, against the first defendant, personally and against defendants 2 to 6 in so far as it related to the family properties in their hands. The attachment was made absolute. In execution of this decree, E.P. No. 71 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Shencottah, was filed for sale of the properties forming the subject-matter of the attachment. The upset price was fixed at Rs. 10,000. E.P. No. 22 of 1974 was filed again and the defendants were represented by a counsel. The upset price was reduced to Rs. 8,000. Then again, by another application,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »