Chennai Court June 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.
S. Bagianathan and ors. Vs. the Secretary to the Govt. of Tamil Nadu, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ359
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, O.C.J.1. In these writ appeals, the two substantial questions that arise for consideration are (1) Whether a department of a municipality dealing in the distribution of electricity will come under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946(Central Act 20 of 1946) and if so, whether the provisions of the said Act are applicable and (2) Whether a department of the Municipality which is within the municipal administration having various other departments like that, can be singled out for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. A Division Bench of this Court in Coimbatore Municipality v. Thiruvenkataswami, I.L.R. (1973)1 Mad. 405 : 87 L.W. 462, has held in respect of the very same municipality which is now litigating the matter, that the District Municipalities Act, being a special law, is applicable and not the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which is a general law. The view that th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-iv Vs. Colombo Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: [1984]149ITR108(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee is a registered firm. One Seeniappa Nadar was partner in the said firm till his death on November 17, 1972. He had earmarked certain amounts in his capital account in the partnership books to his grandsons by a will executed by him on September 21, 1970. In the will he has stated that the said amount should taken by his son, Kalidasan, as the trustee, that he should take charge of the sum, improve it and hold it on behalf of his sons who were living or who may be born thereafter and that he should divide the amounts among his sons after the last son attained the age of eighteen. After the death of Seeniappa Nadar, the amounts standing to the credit of the deceased were transferred to the account of the estate of the deceased. For the amounts standing to the credit of the estate of the deceased, interest has been credited to the estate of the deceased. Kalidasan, the trustee appointed under the will of Seeniappa, was not a partner in the firm, but his two mi...
K.A.K. Anwar and Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC58(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessees are the same in both the cases. For the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, they were assessed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Purasawakkam, on a taxable turnover of Rs. 20,36,799.97 and Rs. 22,71,424.96 respectively. They filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal after their appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner failed. Before the Tribunal, the assessees objected to the levy of tax on the ground that for the year 1977-78 a turnover of Rs. 16,17,155.23 represented local sales, of tanned hides and skins and not inter-State sales. Likewise for the year 1978-79, they contended that a sum of Rs. 7,84,897.40 represented local sales. They also contended that, in any event, even if the sales turnovers are taken to represent inter-State sales of tanned hides and skins, they are exempt by G.O. Ms. No. 3602, Revenue, dated 28th December, 1963. The Tribunal, after going through the relevant records and documents, held that the said two item...
Tawakkal Tanning Co. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: [1983]54STC113(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The only question that arises in this tax case is whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption on a turnover of Rs. 18,09,254.44 under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee claimed the said exemption on the ground that the turnover represents penultimate sales which occasioned the export, and therefore, the turnover is entitled to exemption under section 5(3) of the Act. The assessee did not produce any documents to show that there was a prior contract of sale between the assessee and the foreign buyer, and that only in fulfilment of that contract for performing his obligations under that contract, the assessee purchased goods. It is well-established that to claim exemption under section 5(3), the dealer must show that there was a prior agreement of sale between the dealer and the foreign buyer and it is with a view to perform his obligation to export the goods under that contract, that he purchased the goods locally and this purchase should be ...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. O.A. Abdul Samak Sahib Sons.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC68(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The question that arises in this tax case is as to whether the penalty under section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, could be levied on the basis that the assessment is under section 12(4) of the Act. In this case, the assessee submitted a return, but the assessing authority found the return to be incorrect and incomplete and proceeded to make a best judgment assessment after ignoring the turnover as disclosed in the books. The question is whether the assessment in this case could be said to have been made under section 12(4) in which case alone the penalty under section 12(5) could be levied. Section 12(4) enables the assessing authority to assess a dealer on the basis of his accounts if such dealer (i) has failed to submit the prescribed return; or (ii) has failed to submit the prescribed return within the prescribed time; or (iii) if the return submitted is found to be incomplete or incorrect. Admittedly, in this case, the assessing authority no...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. V.P.S. Narayana Nadar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC267(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessees in this case have disputed before the Tribunal the turnover assessed under section 7A and additional tax thereon and levy of penalty of Rs. 55,984.00 under section 12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, which were sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on first appeal. The Tribunal, after examining the records, confirmed the assessment under section 7A and also the additional tax due thereon. However, in respect of penalty, the Tribunal held that the assessees are not liable to pay penalty under section 12(5) and set aside the same. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in so far as it set aside the levy of penalty, the State has chosen to file this tax case. 2. It is seen that originally the assessing authority levied a penalty of Rs. 53,976 under section 12(5) at 1 1/2 times the tax due on the turnover not disclosed in the return. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal had reduced the penalty equal to the tax due at 4 p...
The Workmen of Mica Farm Chemicals Represented by Its President, Thang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ371
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The short but important question anises for consideration in this writ petition for mandamus, wherein a direction is sought as against the first respondent to reconsider the order in G.O. Rt. No. 1750 Labour and Employment, dated 4th August, 1977. In order to appreciate the controversy, I think it is useful to extract the relevant order of the Government, which is to the following effect:The Government have examined the conciliation report of the Labour Officer, Salem first read above in regard to an industrial dispute raised by the Mica Farm Employees Union, Mettur Dam, Salem District against the Management of Mica Harm Chemicals Limited, Mettur Dam, Salem District over the issue regarding the non-employment of Thiru N. Marimuthu and they pass the following orders:2. It is clear that the charges against the worker have been proved in the enquiry.3. Hence the Government consider that there is no case to refer the issue in dispute for adjudication.(By order of the Go...
Daba Industrial and Trading Company (Pvt.) Limited and anr. Vs. Dr. B. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1983
Reported in: (1984)1MLJ291
ORDERFakkir Mohammed, J.1. The tenants are the revision petitioners and the revision petition has been filed against the order of the appellate authority (III Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras) in R.C.A. No. 1479 of 1982, dated 1st February, 1983, reversing the dismissal order! of the Rent Controller and granting an order of eviction in favour of the landlord.2. The landlord filed H.R.C. No. 3876 of 1981, under section' 10 (3) (a) (i) of Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 on the ground of bona fide requirement of the building for the occupation of his son arid daughter-in-law. The demised building forms the rear portion of the building which is under the occupation of the landlord. The tenants have been paying a monthly rent of Rs. 500 which is made up of Rs. 400 for the building and Rs. 100 for amenities. The landlord is occupying the front portion of the building consisting of three rooms, hall, an open verandah, kitchen and a servant's bath room at a distance. The landlord is a retired En...
Union Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ456Mad
Ramanujam, J.1. Since the points involved in all the writ petitions are the same, they are dealt with together. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are nationalised Banks and the second respondent in each of the writ petitions is their employee and the first respondent in W.P.No. 956/79 is the Addl. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, and the first respondent in the other writ petitions is the Addl. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, whose orders passed under s. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act has been challenged in these writ petitions. As the facts are substantially the same in all the writ petitions, it is enough if the facts in the first writ petition, namely, W.P.No. 956/79, are dealt with in detail. 2. The second respondent therein was employed as a clerk in the Coimbatore Branch of the Union Bank of India, the petitioner therein. Certain charges were framed against him by a memo dated 6th July, 1973, and after holding a do...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1983
Reported in: (1982)31CTR(Mad)3; [1985]152ITR487(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire technical aid fees paid by the assessee to M/s. Clayton Dewandre Company Ltd., U.K., and the royalty paid to M/s. Bendix collaboration agreements should be allowed as a deduction 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the entire technical aid fees paid by the assessee to M/s. Clayton Dewandre Company Ltd., under the collaboration agreement, should be allowed as a deduction 2. Identical question were considered by this court in the assessee's own case for the earlier year in CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. : [1982]136ITR315(Mad) . In that case the court has held that the know-how agreements entered into by the assessee with M/s. Clayton Dewandre Company Ltd., U.K.,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »