Chennai Court September 1982 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras Vs. K. Saraswathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR486(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question of law has been referred to this court at the instance of the Revenue for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order dated March 26, 1965, imposing a penalty of Rs. 16,700 by the Income-tax Officer under section 221(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not valid in law ?' 2. The assessee was levied a penalty of Rs. 16,700 for non-payment of advance tax of Rs. 3,34,967.63 demanded under s. 210(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1965-66. The imposition of the said penalty was challenged by the assessee before the AAC on various grounds. The AAC, while rejecting all the other grounds, accepted the following two contentions of the assessee : (1) that there was no valid or proper show-cause notice before the actual levy of penalty as contemplated by s. 221(1), proviso, of the Act; and (2) that in any event the computation of advance tax of Rs. 3,34,967.63 having been mad...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sastha and ors. (Legal Heirs of Late S. Nelliappan) Vs. Assistant C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1982
Reported in: [1984]146ITR62(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioners herein are the legal representatives of one late S. Nelliappan of Nagercoil. The petitioners, as accountable persons, filed a retirn under the E.D. Act on the basis that Nelliappan was the karta of an HUF and as such his share alone in the HUF passed on his death. The Asst, Controller, accepting the assertion of the accountable persons that the deceased was a member of a joint family at the time of his death and, therefor, his 1/6th share alone in the joint family passed on his death, proceeded to determine the principal value of the 1/6th sharee of the deceased in the joint family at Rs. 5,27,069 by his order dated 29th November, 1971. As regards the valuation of some of the tiems of the properties, the accountable persons field an appeal before the controller. The controller partly allowed the appeal. As aganist the order of the controller, both the Revenue as well as accountable persons field appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appe...
Tag this Judgment!The Suprintendent Tansi Leather Works, Madras Vs. G. Gowri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1982
Reported in: (1986)IILLJ263Mad
K.B.N. Singh, C.J. 1. Both the writ appeals and the two petitions raise a common question of law and with the consent of parties, they have been heared together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The short facts necessary for disposal of both the appeals only need be stated. 3. By a notice, dated 28th December, 1971, the Superintendent, Tansi Leather Works, informed the fifteen workmen named therein that the Management had decided to lay off the 15 workers named therein out of 23 workers. The relevant portion of the notice reads as follows : 'It is hereby informed to the workers that the Management had decided to give lay-off for 15 (fifteen) workers out of 23 (twenty-three) workers whose names are given below, with effect from 29th December, 1971, onwards until further notice. The reason for the lay-off being want of orders and inability to provide work for them'. Only two of the laid-off workers, namely S. Gowri and G. Venkataratinamma filed two applications under S. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajendra Mills Ltd., by Its Managing Director, Chockalingam Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1982
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ139
ORDERR. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in R.E.P. No. 1 of 1967 in O.S. No. 185 of 1964, directing the sale of items 1 and 4 mentioned in the schedule to the petition to be sold in the first instance. The civil revision petitioner was not a party to the execution proceedings. Hence he filed the above civil revision petition after obtaining the leave of this Court as per the order of Padmanabhan, J. in C.M.P. 8680 of 1980, dated 2nd September, 1980.2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The respondents 1 to 9 in the execution petition, who are the respondents 2 to 10 herein, mortgaged 5 items of properties to Messrs. Pandian Bank Ltd., which had subsequently merged with the Canara Bank (Gugai branch) by deposit of title deeds on 10th June, 1959. Since the mortgagors failed to repay the mortgage amount, the Bank filed a suit in O.S. 185 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Salem for realisi...
Tag this Judgment!Bombay Tyres International Ltd., Madras Vs. P. Chitti Babu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1982
Reported in: (1983)ILLJ455Mad
1. The defendant in the suit who is aggrieved by the order of the Courts below that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is triable by Civil Courts and secondly the Plaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction till the disposal of the suit, is the revision petition. 2. The facts are simple : The respondent is a driver in the employment of the petitioner. In the year 1953, he gave certain particulars regarding his date of birth and on the basis of such information, his date of birth was entered in the registers of the company as 15th September, 1921. As per rules of the company, he would reach the age of superannuation on 30th September, 1981 on completion of 60 years of age. In August, 1980 the respondent addressed the Petitioner to have his date of birth corrected as 26th June, 1925. Since the Petitioner did not accept the revision of age sought for by the respondent, the later filed a suit O.S. No. 2058/81 praying for the reliefs of (1) a declaration of his date of birth as 26th June, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ammakannu Ammal Vs. Natesa thevar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1982
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ187
V. Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. In this second appeal a nice point arises in the administration of the execution chapter of the Civil Procedure Code. The question is about how adequate Order 21 of the Code could be to tackle a situation which had arisen in this case.2. The case is one where the decree-holders had obtained a mandatory injunction against their neighbour. The mandatory injunction was to demolish a superstructure in the suit land. The judgment-debtors did not comply with the decree. When the decree-holders proceeded to file an execution petition, the judgment-debtor's mother who had trespassed into the superstructure in the meantime, offered obstruction. The decree-holders filed an application for removal of the obstruction. The executing Court ordered the application and ordered the obstructor Co remove the obstruction, holding that she was a trespasser. She filed a statutory suit for establishing her title to the superstructure. This suit failed in the trial Court and in the f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›