Chennai Court March 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.
P.R. Ramakrishnan and ors. Vs. A. Mounaguruswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas477(Mad)
Natarajan, J.1. The petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 251 of 1979 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore. The case arises out of a private complaint filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners and a public limited company, to wit, Radhakrishna Mills Ltd., which has been arrayed as the fifth accused in the case. The complaint has been taken on file under ss. 108A, 187C(2) and 308(3) of the Companies Act. 2. The averments of the respondent in the complaint filed by him are to the following effect. The complainant is a shareholder in Radhakrishna Mills Ltd., the fifth accused, and holds 240 equity shares. The board of directors of the mill is composed mainly of two families, one, that of Sri R. Venkataswami Naidu and his sons and the other, that of the first accused and his three sons, viz., accused Nos. 2 to 4. There are only two outsiders in the board, viz., one R. Palaniswami Naidu and one A. Narayanaswami Naidu. The first accus...
S. Nagaraj Vs. S. Govindaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1984Mad212; (1983)IIMLJ314
Gokulkrishna, J.1. This original side appeal' filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arises out of the order of Sbaturnikbam. J. -dated m12-1982, made in Appln. No. 4651 of 1982, revoking the leave to granted in Appln. No. 4340 of 1982.2. The appellant herein filed the suit in. C. S, No. 614 of 1982 on the file of the Original Side of this Court praying for a declaration that the appellant and respondent 1 heating are the winners of the first prize under tictet No. A.891076 of the Royal Bhutan Lottery, in respect of the draw held on 2-61982, in the 147th draw and. also the owner. of the amount realised there from by the defendants, viz., towards the shade. of the plaintiff Rs. 2,50,000, standing to the credit of defendant I in defendant 2 bank at Oppanakara. St, Coimbatore, and also for permanent injunction' restraining respondent$ I and 2 herein from in any way dealing, with the amount of Rs. 2,50,000, standing to the credit of defendant 1 in defendant 2 bank at Oppannakara St, C...
Kamala Ganapathi Subramaniam Vs. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: AIR1985Mad163
ORDER1. This is a civil revision petition filed by the landlady, Kamala Ganapathy Subramaniam, under S. 83 of the Tamil Nadu, Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961) as amended by the Act 37 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the judgment D/- 25-2-1980 in L.T.A. No. 149 of 1979 on the file of the I-and Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore The Land Tribunal while entertaining the appeal against the order of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms. Coimbatore in file No. 6K/MRII/L D/- 23-12-1978, held on the point whether the order of the Authorised Officer declaring surplus land in respect of the three charities is correct, that so far as Ayyarval Choutry, Palani is concerned, the Authorised Officer has committed an error in converting the actual extent into standard acres, that he has to arrive at the standard acres under S. 3(40) of the Act taking the basic assessment as the rate at which the land is assessed to land revenue and decl...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.K. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: [1983]54STC82(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The only question that arises for consideration in this tax case filed by the revenue is, whether arrow-root powder sold by the assessee would fall under item 103(viii) of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which is as follows : '103(viii) Foods including preparations of vegetables, fruits, milk, cereals, flour, starch, birds, eggs, meat and meat offals, animals blood, fish, crustaceans and molluscs which - (a) are sold under any brand name registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (Central Act 43 of 1958); and (b) do not fall under item 24.' 2. According to the revenue arrow-root powder would fall either under 'food' or under 'preparation of vegetables'. The Tribunal has held that arrow-root powder is neither an item of food nor is it a preparation of vegetables, that the arrow-root powder is generally consumed by people who are ill, particularly those suffering from diarrhoea or similar diseases and that therefore it ...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Gomathiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: [1984]55STC210(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this tax case, the revenue challenges the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal so far as it is against the revenue. 2. The assessee in this case is a dealer in steel furniture and clocks in Mettur Dam. The officers of the Intelligence Wing inspected the place of business of the assessee on 17th December, 1977, and during the inspection they recovered six account books. The said account books related to 1976-77. The account books recovered were treated as second set of accounts, as the assessee had already been assessed on another set of accounts produced by her. The second set of account books were examined with reference to regular accounts and it was found that the sales mentioned in the second set of account books were not accounted for in the regular accounts. Thereafter, on the basis of the entries in the second set of account books, the escaped turnover was taken at Rs. 40,295 for 1976-77 and a tax of Rs. 4,573 and a penalty of Rs. 6,859 were levied un...
Kamala Ganapathi Subramaniam Vs. the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ78
ORDERS. Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed by the landlady, Kamala Ganapathi Subramaniam, under Section 83 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act (LVIII of 1961) as amended by the Act (XXXVII of 1972), hereinafter referred to as the Act, against the judgment, dated 25th February, 1980 in L.T.A. No. 149 of 1979 on the file of the Land Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore. The Land Tribunal, while entertaining the appeal against the order of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Coimbatore in file No. 6K|MRII|L, dated 23rd December, 1978, held on the point whether the order of the Authorised Officer, declaring surplus land in respect of the three charities is correct, that so far as Ayyarval Choultry, Palani is concerned, the Authorised Officer has committed an error in converting the actual extent into standard acres, that he has to arrive at the standard acres under Section 3(40) of the Act taking the basic assessment as th...
S. Palanisamy and ors. Vs. A.S. Rajamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ299
S. Mohan, J.1. These two revisions can be dealt with under a common order, since both of them raise identical issues to be dealt with. They relate to the grant of a stage carriage permit for a town service route of a distance of 25 km. Bhavani Bus Stand to Andiyur. The revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1434 of 1981 (S. Palanisamy) was applicant No. 10. He was awarded 10 marks. The revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2324 of 1.981 is N. Ramaswamy who was applicant No. 3 who was also awarded 10 marks, while the contesting respondent A.S. Rajamani was applicant No. 2 before the Revisional Transport Authority. He was also awarded 10 marks.2. The Regional Transport Authority while considering the respective claims noted the fact 'This is a town service route with a distance of 25 kms. However, the character of the route is primarily rural in nature and there is no advantage in preferring a town bus operator for this route on that ground only. He preferred on this basis applicant No. 10 (S. Pa...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South Indian Photographic and Allied Tr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1983
Reported in: [1987]166ITR166(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee who is the same in all these tax cases is as the South Indian Photographic Company and Allied Trades Association, Madras hereinafter referred to as the 'company'. In the assessment proceeding under the Income-tax Act, 1961, herein after referred to as 'the Act' for the assessment the 1963-64 to 1968-69, the company claimed exemption under section 11 on the ground that it is a non-profit making organization deactivated to the advancement of an object of general public utility. It also claimed exemption under section 10. The Income-tax officer however did not accept the said claims and the assessed its income holding that its receipt fork members and non-members should be taken to relate to the service rendered to them by the company. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held the the exemption under section 10(3) and 11 were not available. Ultimately the matters were taken to the Tribunal contending that its object are charitable and therefore its...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-i Vs. V. Venugopal (by Legal Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR394(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following three question have been referred to this court for its opinion at the instance of the Revenue : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the period of delay for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the W.T.Act should be computed from November 2, 1966, and, accordingly, cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,816 for the assessment year 1965-66 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the period of delay for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the W.T.Act should be computed from February 18, 1967, and, accordingly, reducing the penalty levied for the assessment year 1966-67 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the period of delay for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the W.T.Act sho...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Chaganlal Kailas and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1983
Reported in: [1984]148ITR7(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to enhance the assessment in the case of the assessee ?' 2. The assessee, in this case, is a registered firm doing commission business in fruits, both at Madras and at New Delhi. While computing the income for the year 1970-71, the ITO noticed that there was a claim for the deduction of Rs. 12,585 under the head 'Entertainment' both at Madras and New Delhi. As against the said claim, he followed only a sum of Rs. 5,000 as admissible and added back the excess sum of 'Rs. 7,585 to the income returned by the assessee. The assessee, aggrieved against the disallowance of a portion of the entertainment expenses, filed on appeal before the AAC. The AAC confirmed the finding of the ITO regarding the disa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »