Chennai Court November 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Palanivel Pillai Vs. Santharam Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ109
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. In this second appeal, the defendant in O.S. No. 290 of 1976 on the file of the District Munsif, Mayuram, is the appellant. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs laid the suit for recovery of two items of gold jewels or their value, under the following circumstances. There was a borrowing of a sum of Rs. 2,000 by the plaintiffs from the defendant on a promissory note dated 26th July, 1969. The defendant laid the suit O.S. No. 51 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif, Mayuram, for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note marked in that case as Exhibit A-l, against the plaintiffs herein. The plaintiffs herein, who were the defendants in O.S. No. 51 of 1972, not only raised various contentions but also pleaded that the two items of gold jewels were pledged by them with the defendant as could be seen from a chit dated 27th July, 1969, marked in that case as Exhibit B-1 and that he was bound to return the jewels on th...
Jaikrishndas Vs. Chiruthail Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad321; (1984)2MLJ443
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The first respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the owner oft he car CRP 6835 is the appellant herein. On 30-9-1976. at or about 10-30 a.m.'when the appellant who was getting down from his parked car,opened the door, it hit the scooter TMS 4191, driven by Divakaran, who was proceeding alongside the parked car resulting in the throwing away of the scooter driver and causing his death. The mother of the deceased filed a petition under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. claiming compensation of Rs. 1.15.000, for the death of the deceased. The Second respondent is the Insurance Company with whom the appellant, has insured ' his vehicle. The additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, by order dat6d 19-0-1979, determined the compensation at Rs. 20,780 under the various headings. However, the award was given only against the appellant and the Insurance company was held not liable. In this appeal by the insured, the learned counsel for the appellan...
P.V. Parthasarathy Chettiar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad32; (1984)1MLJ63
ORDER1. The Petitioner is the owner of a residential premises bearing door No 43. Arundale Street. Mylapore, Madras-4. He has applied to the second respondent under Section 3-A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Controller, Act 18 of 1960 for the release of the rear Portion of the said residential premises to enable him to accommodate his daughter. That application was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 26-4-1982 on the ground that if the 'landlord' really 'wants to a portion to his daughter he can very well take steps to evict any one of the private tenants and accommodate his daughter'. 2. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the second respondent dated 26-4-1982 preferred an appeal to the first respondent. The first respondent under G.O. Ms.No.3074 Home (AC.1) Department dated 8-12-82 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the second respondent stating that the landlord owns three other houses other than the petition premises and that the married ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. C.K. Gajapathy and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC137(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The disputed turnover in this case is Rs. 29,108.07. The said sum represents the sales turnover of stainless steel vessels in the hands of the assessee. The assessee's contention was that the vessels sold by it on a turnover of Rs. 29,108.07 cannot be taxed as they are second sales. The assessee-company also produced the bills of its purchase to show that it purchased the goods from a local dealer, Messrs. Premier Steel Distributors, carrying on business at No. 27, Ravanier Street, Madras-3. The fact that the stainless steel vessels sold by the assessee have been purchased from a local dealer cannot be disputed in view of the bills of purchase dated 30th June, 1980, and 1st July, 1980, produced by the assessee. The only contention urged by the Revenue is that even though the purchases are from a local dealer, the local dealer's registration certificate having been cancelled even before the date of purchase, the sales could not be taxed, and therefore, the sales by the ...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Southern Explosives Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC173(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The turnover in dispute in these tax revision cases is a sum of Rs. 40,14,743. The said sum represents the sales turnover of three items, namely, explosives, detonators and safety fuses. The assessee contended that the sales of these items are taxable at multi-point at the rate of 4 per cent. But the Revenue contended that the three items will either fall under item 53 or under item 138 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, and therefore, the sales of these items should be taxed at a single point and at a higher rate. The Tribunal, following the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Indian Detonators Ltd., Hyderabad [1971] 28 STC 84 held that all these items will not come within the purview of entries 53 and 138 of the First Schedule as contended by the Revenue, and therefore, they have to be taxed only at 4 per cent multi-point. The Tribunal, though in the main part of its order dealt with all the three items, in the final portion of the order, refere...
Jaikrishandas Vs. Chiruthai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1983
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC81
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The first respondent before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the owner of the car CRP 6835 is the appellant herein. On 30th September 1976, at or about 10-30 a.m. when the appellant who was getting down from his parked car, opened the door, it hit the scooter TMS 4191, driven by Divakaran, who was proceeding along side the parked car, resulting in the throwing away of the scooter driver and causing his death. The mother of the deceased filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,15,000/- for the death of the deceased. The second respondent is the insurance company with whom the appellant has insured his vehicle. The additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, by order, dated 19th June, 1979, determined the compensation at Rs. 20,780 under the various headings. However, the award was given only against the appellant, and the insurance company was held not liable. In this appeal by the insured, the learned...
Roshan Beevi and ors. Vs. Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1983
Reported in: 1984(15)ELT289(Mad)
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The above five writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed challenging the legality and validity of the orders of detention in the respective cases, passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA Act). 2. One of the main grounds raised in all these writ petitions on the strength of an observation made by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Balasubrahmanyan, J. and M. N. Moorthy, J. in Kaiser Otmar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1981 MLW 158 : 1981 Cri LJ 208 is that the detenu should be deemed to have been arrested from the moment they were taken into custody by the Customs officials, even if it be under the guise of any enquiry or interrogation, and that their subsequent custody with the Customs Department without being produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours as envisaged in Article 22(2) of the Constitution of...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore Vs. Meenakshi Bankers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1983
Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Mad)219; [1985]152ITR132(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was a dissolution of the assessee-firm on November 7,1973, and that the income for the period from April 1, 1973, to November 7, 1973, had to be assessed in the hands of the assessee-firm and the income from November 8, 1973, to March 31, 1974, in the hands of the successor-firm ?' 2. The assessee in this case for the assessment year 1974-75 filed a return of income on September 7, 1974, for the accounting period April 1, 1973, to November 7, 1973, showing an income of Rs. 14,811 and the said return was filed in the status of a registered firm consisting of four partners, viz., Meenakshi Achi, Ramayee Achi, Rajeswari Achi and Sundari Achi. The first two partners had a 3/10ths share each and the last two had a 2/10th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu, Madras Vs. Express Newspapers ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR311(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the concession provided by section 22 of the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974, was available to the assessee and that the amended provisions of section 271(1)(a) would not apply for computing the quantum of penalty and (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee should be treated as one who has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court for the assessment year 1962-63 in respect of an order of penalty under section 271(1)(a) and the expression 'the amount of tax payable' should be considered as the amount of tax payable by him in the notice of demand for computing the quantum of penalty in the assessee's case ?' 2. The assessee, which is a private limited company, was served for the assessme...
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. R. Arvamudham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1983
Reported in: [1985]156ITR341(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to us for opinion by the ITAT : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 85,000 being the amount gifted by the deceased to his sons, wife, daughter and grandsons was not liable to be included under s. 10 of the E.D. Act ?' 2. One Sri M. A. Ramanujam Pillai was running a rice mill in his individual capacity. In 1956-57, a sum of Rs. 85,000 was gifted by way of transfer to the debit of capital account of the deceased and to the credit of th e account of his sons, wife, daughter and grandsons. Thereafter, the donees were taken in as partner and the credit balances in their favour were credited to their capital account. The said Rammanujam Pillai died on October 16, 1969. in the course of the assessment proceedings under the E.D. Act, the Asst. CED held that since the possession and enjoyment of the funds gifted had not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »