Chennai Court December 1984 Judgments
Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. Abdul Samathu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-1984
Reported in: 1985(22)ELT761(Mad)
ORDER1. This is a petition to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Madras in M.P. 636 of 1984, directing the return to the respondents of his passport. The respondent therein the Assistant Collector of Customs House, Madras, is the petitioner herein. 2. The respondent accused is a citizen of Singapore and holds a passport issued by the Government of the Republic of Singapore. On 21-3-1984, at about 9-30 p.m. the respondent accused arrived at the Madras Airport from Singapore by Air India flight. His baggage consisted of one suit case, one hand bag, two polythene hand bags and one carton containing Sony Television and made a declaration in respect thereof. His oral declaration was accepted by the Customs Officer with regard to the contents and the value and a sum of Rs. 14,680, was levied as customs duty. The respondent immediately paid the amount under the receipt No. 16266, dated 21-3-1984. While he was about to leave the Airport, he wa...
Tag this Judgment!Second Income-tax Officer Vs. K. A. S. A. Arunachala Nadar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-1984
Reported in: [1986]17ITD1070(Mad)
ORDER1. These three appeals raise a common issue. When the appeals were taken up for hearing none was present for the assessee. Nor was there any request for adjournment. The appeals were, therefore, heard ex parte for disposal on merits.2. The assessee is an HUF. It is a partner in the registered firm of Everest Litho Press. The issue for decision in the three appeals is whether the salary and interest paid to Shri Arunachala Nadar (the karta of the assessee-family) by the said firm is to be assessed in the hands of the assessee-family here as share of profits from the firm or as the income of the karta in his individual capacity. The relevant factual position is as under :Assessment yearSalary paid to kartaInterest paid to kartaAssessee-familys share of profit from the firmTotal of columns 2, 3 and 4(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) Rs.Rs.Rs.Rs.1981-828,0007,19612,43327,6291982-838,0008,88312,98529,8681983-845,00010,66517,86433,5293. The ITO brought to tax in the hands of the assessee-family, the sala...
Tag this Judgment!C. Arasakumar and anr. Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC270
Shanmukham, J. 1. These appeals laid under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, raise an interesting point. 2. It is seen from the two certificates dt. 20-6-1972, issued by the office of the High Commissioner of India at Colombo that A.S.G. Chelliah Nadar son of A. S. Ghanamuthu Nadar, was a general merchant carrying on business at 168 Maliban St. Colombo, and is one of the persons affected by the Ceylon Government's Scheme of Repatriation of Indian Nationals and was returning to India for good. He had remitted moneys from Colombo through P. Edward Vedanayagam and the appellant in C.M.A. 409 of 1980 had received Rs. 50,000/- during March 1970 from Edward Vedanayagam after tendering a number E. 86 contained in a letter sent by his father from Colombo. A sum of Rs. 29,076/- being the balance of the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- was seized by the Director of Enforcement. From the account books handed over by the appellant to the Director of Enforcement, the name and address of the partie...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachalarn and Co. and ors. Vs. M. Sadasivarn
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad354
1. Defendants are the appellants. The suit out of which the second appeal arose, was filed by the plaintiff respondent for rendition of accounts or in the alternative for dissolution of partnership. Defendants 2 to 4 and the plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement on 9-7-1970 for carrying on 'commission business' in chillies, groundnuts and onion. The plaintiff contributed Rs. 19,500. Defendants 2 and 3 contributed Rs. 16.250 each. 4th defendant contributed Rs. 13,000. The second defendant was managing the affairs of the partnership. Defendants 3 and 4 joined the first defendant firm on 1-4-1970. The partnership was to continue for three years from 1-4-1970. During the year 1970-71, a net profit of Rs. 50,258 was earned. It was shared in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed and the plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs. 15,077 towards his share. But for the years 1971-72, the plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs. 4,302-30. The case of the plaintiff is that the other partners nam...
Tag this Judgment!D. Rajaiah Vs. Dhanapal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad99
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal concerns the guardianship and custody of two Hindu minor girls. The first minor girl named Meena alias Aarthi was born on 13-5-1972. The second minor girl named Priya was born on 12-9-1973. They have lost their mother. The mother is stated to have died on 10-8-1982. Their father is alive and he is the first respondent in this appeal. The Appellant is their maternal grandfather. The facts placed in the case have disclosed that the marriage between the parents of the minor children took place on 26-5-1969. The father is an Engineer and he is a M. Tech., and his profession took him to Bhopal, Delhi and Tiruchirapali During these years, his wife, the mother of the minor girls was alive. His employment as such was with Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, (BHEL) and he was so employed last at Tiruchirapalli. The mother of the minor ch1dren seemed to have fallen sick and she had comet her parent's house at Madurai for treatment. The two minor children seemed to ha...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. Nataraja Pillai and anr. Vs. Madurai Municipal Corporation, Repre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ122
ORDERS. Ratnavel, J.1. These two writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 2830 and 2831 of 1982, are filed by one U.P. Nataraja Pillai and one V.S. Kandan respectively, who were in the service of the Madurai Municipality, which is now upgraded as a Corporation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, viz., Madurai Municipal Corporation and the State of Tamil Nadu, to grant and implement the Liberalised Pension Scheme of 374 per cent pension on the petitioners' last pay drawn and also grant them all the subsequent benefits conferred under various Government Orders) to all Government servants and Madurai' Corporation Employees, together with dearness allowance and family pension scheme with retrospective effect from 14.1.1970 as is applicable to all other retired Government servants and employees of local bodies.2. In both the writ petitions, the points raised are identical, except with regard to the individual service record of...
Tag this Judgment!Devendra Nainar Vs. Badrabagu Nainar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ311
ORDERM.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.1. The plaintiff, who has lost in both the Courts below has filed the above second appeal.2. The facts of the case are discussed in detail by the Courts below and it is unnecessary for me again to go in detail about the same in this second appeal. For the disposal of this appeal, the following facts are sufficient.3. O.S.No. 31 of 1951 was filed by one Chandalankara Nainar against Chandranatha Nainar, Baradaraju Nainar, Badrabagu Nainar and one Vasantharai Ammal, for the recovery of the amount due on a promissory note executed in his favour. The suit was decreed. In the present suit O.S.No. 3 of 1971, against which the above second appeal arises, Badrabagu Nainar to the first defendant and his mother Vasantharai Ammal is the second defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 in that suit are brothers. The first defendant herein is the son of the first defendant in O.S.No. 31 of 1951. Defendants 3 and 4 herein are the sons of the first defendant herein and all of them const...
Tag this Judgment!M. Jamal Company Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1984
Reported in: 1985(6)ECC202; 1985(21)ELT369(Mad)
ORDERDavid Annoussamy, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order of dismissal by a Single Judge of this Court, in W.P. No. 3422 of 1979. 2. As per the First Schedule, Section 15.07 of the Customs Tariff Act (51 of 1975), palmolein is subject to standard rate of duty of 60%. By Notification No. 129, dated 1-7-1977, the Government of India exempted palmolein oil from the whole of the Customs duty leviable thereon as specified in the said First Schedule to Act 51 of 1975. While so, the appellant imported two consignments of palmolein which came to India by vessel s.s. Nikoley Somashke. The vessel came to Madras first on 22-2-1979 and was not permitted to discharge the cargo. It went to Kakinada, left that place on 27-2-1979 and came back to Madras on 2-3-1979. The entry inward was granted on the same date, viz. 2-3-1979, and the goods were unloaded; the bill of entry was filed by the appellant on 13-3-1979. In the meanwhile two notifications were issued by the Government of India....
Tag this Judgment!Badrinath Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad3
M.N. Chandurkar, C. J. 1. The appellant who is the original petitioner is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and from 1973 to 1975; he was Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Archives and Historical Research. It is common knowledge that on 15-8-1973, a time capsule was buried in the precincts of Red Fort which also contained the history of India for the post-independence period telescoped into 10,000 word narrative. The task of compiling this narrative was entrusted to the Indian Council of Historical Research, which in turn selected one Prof. Krishnaswami from Madras to write the said narrative, which, it appears, was ultimately accepted by the Government of India.2. Admittedly, in the course of his speech delivered on 7-9-1973, to the students of the Presidency College, Madras on the subject of Indian attitude towards History, the petitioner had made some adverse comments on the nature of the narration. On the basis of this comment, charges were framed against the petitioner under ...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.P. Arunachalam Vs. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Privat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ506
ORDERK. Shanmukham, J.1. O.P. No. 44 of 1978 came to be instituted by A.M.P. Arunachalam under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act (for short, the Act). As respondents 2 to 5 hold among themselves and their close relatives an over-whelming majority of shares in the 1st respondent-company Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Limited, it was practically impossible for any other shareholders, particularly the petitioner to secure the concurrence of members holding 10% of the issued capital of the company to enable the petitioner to present a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act. He therefore applied to the Company Law Board in terms of Section 399 (4) of the Act seeking an authorisation to pursue the application under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act. The Company Law Board by order dated 13.4.1977 authorised the said petitioner to institute the said proceeding in relation to the 1st respondent-company. The petition was pending for some time. It so happened that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »