Chennai Court July 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.
Secretary of Tamilnadu Electricity Board Accounts Subordinate Union Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)IILLJ478Mad
ORDER1.The Writ Petition is to quash the award of the Labour Court, Madras made in I.D. No. 239 of 1977 dated 16th July, 1979. The point referred to for adjudication found in para. 6 of the award is as follows : 'Whether the action of the management in having withdrawn the concession of the General Secretary of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts Subordinates Union and the Joint Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Workers Federation being allowed to attend to full time union work from 31st March, 1976, is justified; and to what relief they would be entitled'. A few facts and sequences leading to this dispute can be stated. By Board's proceedings dated 18th January, 1973, the following order was passed : 'The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Accounts Subordinates Union, which is a recognised union under the Code of Discipline in Industry has requested that the General Secretary of the Union may be deputed for full time Union work, and that Thiru S. V. Angappan who is an Accountant in ...
K. Meyyappan Vs. the Asst. General Manager, Staff Department, Bank of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1983
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ50Mad
ORDER1. Plaintiff is petitioner herein, who filed a suit for a declaration that he is entitled to continue in service till he completes 60 years of age on 9th September, 1984 and for permanent injunction restraining defendant-Bank from superannuating him with effect from 9th September, 1982, as per superannuation order dated 29th December, 1981. He filed the suit on 4th September, 1982 although the order had been passed 9 months earlier to it. Pending disposal of the suit, he filed I.A. No. 15393/83 for grant of an interim injunction from superannuation him and on its being dismissed, he preferred an appeal in C.M.A. No. 229 of 1982 which was also dismissed relying upon the decision in the Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Others v. Lakshminarain and others : (1976)IILLJ163SC , and hence he has preferred this revision petition. 2. Mr. A. Ramachandran, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that courts below have overlooked the fact that after several years of dev...
Southern Traders Vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1983
Reported in: [1984]56STC51(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J. 1. The petitioner in this case is a registered dealer, liable to pay sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. It was assessed to sales tax by the assessing authority for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79 at Rs. 75,123. The said assessment order was not challenged by the assessee. However it appealed to the Government of Tamil Nadu to permit it to pay sales tax levied in easy instalments. By an order in G.O. Rt. No. 781, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 18th November, 1980, the Government permitted the petitioner to pay arrears of tax in ten equal monthly instalments, starting from January, 1981, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the petitioner has to furnish security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority towards the sales tax liability. Though the assessee paid certain instalments and furnished security, it has committed default in payment of monthly instalments. Thereafter, the assessing a...
Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore Vs. M. Mur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: [1985]58STC143(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in this case is whether they levy of penalty under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971, could legally be justified. The assessee is a dealer in Tiruchengode. Tiruchengode area is exempted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Serial Tax (Surcharged) Act. Notwithstanding the exemption available the assessee has collected a sum of Rs. 320 as surcharge payable under section 3(2) of the Surcharge Act. Since the assessee collected surcharge in respect of transactions which would not come under the provisions of the Surcharge Act the assessing authority levied a penalty in the sum of Rs. 480 under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971. The said levy of penalty was challenged before the appellate authority, who, while upholding the levy of penalt...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC223(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The question that arises in this tax case is as to whether the Tribunal has the power to enhance an assessment exercising its appellate power under section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee contended before the Tribunal that the Tribunal has no power to enhance an assessment and the Tribunal has accepted that contention, notwithstanding section 36(3)(a)(i) of the Act before its amendment by Act No. 22 of 1982, by which the Tribunal has been specifically conferred with the power of enhancement without any qualification in exercise of the same. The reasons given by the Tribunal for denying itself the power of enhancement are these : As the appeal before the Tribunal can arise only in respect of questions dealt with by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the enhancement petition filed by the State relates to matters not dealt with by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal has no power to deal with the enhancement petition file...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Prem Electrical Conductors (M.) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: [1984]57STC29(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessees in this case are dealers in electrical conductors. During the assessment year 1974-75 they sold a car TMZ 8143 and realised a sum of Rs. 23,048. The assessing authority included the said amount as part of the sales turnover of the assessee and brought it to tax. The assessee preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, seeking exclusion of the said sum of Rs. 23,048 from the sales turnover. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the sum of Rs. 23,048 realised by the assessee by the sale of the car was liable to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, but found that the actual sum received by assessee, after allowing for depreciation and loss, was only Rs. 14,500 and that therefore the turnover by way of sale of the car should be taken to be only Rs. 14,500. Not satisfied with the decision of the appellate authority, the assessee went before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, it was contended by the assessee that the sum of Rs...
Ramakrishnan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1763
ORDERNatarajan, J.1. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has come to be filed in somewhat unusual circumstances. The petitioner Ramakrishnan is a life convict undergoing imprisonment. He has been convicted for an offence of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1977 on the file of the Sessions Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore. The conviction and sentence were subsequently confirmed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 1980. The petitioner would state that his sister is getting married on 17-7-1983 that he happens to be the only male member of his family and as such his presence at his sister's marriage is indispensable. The petitioner applied to the Government for parole but the Government declined to grant his request. Hence he has approached this Court with this petition and has prayed for grant of parole and suspension of sentence for a period of one month to secure the ends of justice. In support of...
Dina Malar Publications, a Tamil Daily, Reptd., by Its Partner, R. Kri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ306
R. Sengottuvelan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 831 of 1977, who lost his case before both the courts below.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this second appeal are as under-The suit property, comprises an extent of 60' x 40' in S.F. No. 371/2. It was originally a blind alley, which was not used as a public road and later on, the Municipal Council after obtaining the sanction of the State Government under Exhibit B1, dated 24th July, 1972, sold the same to one Panneerselvam under Exhibit A1, dated 9th May, 1974, who sold the same under the original of Exhibit A2 in favour of Ramasubbu Iyer, representing the appellant herein. The area mentioned in the sale deed is 60' x 35' i.e., an area of 2,100 sq. ft. But the blind-alley measured 60' x 40'. The case of the plaintiff is that the sale under Exhibit A1 is by boundaries and all the land comprised within the four boundaries mentioned in Exhibit A1 passed on to the vendee,! Panneerselvam under...
Lodge Malaysia and ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Real Estates and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)2MLJ550
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. In this revision petition against the order of the Court of the Rent Controller, enabling examination of Mrs. S. J. Ispahani alias Shahr Bano Begum and Mrs. Fathima Sultan Begum on commission, issued under Section 18-A of Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960, this civil revision petition is filed. The first contention is that while exercising powers under Section 18-A of the Act, the-Court can appoint a Commissioner only for local investigation, and it cannot extend to a Commission being issued to examine witnesses . The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that an amendment was incorporated under Section 15 of Act XXIII of 1973, consequent to the decisions of this Court reported in Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Rajammal (1965) 1 M.LJ. 287 and Chinnakesavalu v. Mansukhlal (1966) 1 M.L.J. 300. He would' state that when the amendment had been effected consequent to such pronouncements, it cannot be treated as having conferred powers on the Controller to issue Commissions f...
Maddi Venkataratnam and Company Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1983
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC204
ORDERPadmanabhan, J.1. The question agitated in these writ petitions are covered by the decision in' Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Company Limited and I.T.C. Limited v. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and Ors. (W.P. Nos.3025 and 3026 of 1978) [reported in 1984] 1 ECC 266 (Mad) Mr. R. Thyagarajan, the Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government, who now appears, submits that certain points of law were not placed before this Court at the time the earlier petition was argued and that the matter requires reconsideration. It is stated that the respondents are filing an appeal against the judgment in the earlier writ petition. Inasmuch as it is stated that these writ petitions are covered by the earlier decision and the only argument is that certain points of law were not properly placed before this Court on the earlier occasion, I do not think that there is any justification for reconsideration of the matter.2. In these circumstances...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »