Chennai Court June 1984 Judgments
Dolton Printers Private Limited Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1984
Reported in: [1985]58STC137(Mad)
ORDERNatarajan, J. 1. On the ground that the second respondent has passed a mechanical order on the stay petition filed by the petitioners in respect of the tax amount which is disputed in the appeal pending before the second respondent, the petitioners have come forward with this petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the second respondent and to further direct it to dispose of the stay petition afresh. 2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer contained in the writ petition, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal to-day after notice to the Government Advocate for Commercial Tax Cases and hearing his arguments. 3. Consequent on the third respondent passing an order of assessment, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the second respondent and pending disposal of the appeal, they prayed for stay of collection of the disputed tax amount. By way of security for the disputed tax amount, the petitioners have...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohammed Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad173
ORDER1. Ina desperate attempt to resist the execution levied against him by the 3rd respondent (landlord) to evict him, the tenant/petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for the issue of writ of declaration in order to nullify S. 18(2) of the Tamil Nadir Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S. 18(2) lays down that an order passed in execution under sub-sec. (1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision. According to the petitioner, sub-sec. (1) of S. 18 constitutes the Rent Controller a Civil Court and therefore, sub-sec. (2) is ultra virus as it disentitles an affected party to file an appeal or revision against an order in execution made under sub-sec. (1).2. Mohan, J. has already upheld the validity of sub-sec. (2) of S. 18 of the Act in Purushothama, Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu (W. P. No. 5819 of 1979 judgment dated 6-21980) wherein the learned Judge has held as follows : -'Under S. 18(1) of the Tamil...
Tag this Judgment!S. Mohammed Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Reptd. by Secy. to Govt. Home ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-29-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ326
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. In a desperate attempt to resist the execution levied against him by the 3rd respondent (landlord) to evict him, the tenant/petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of declaration in order to nullify Section 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Section 18(2) lays down that an order passed in execution under sub-Section (1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision. According to the petitioner, sub-Section (1) of Section 18 constitutes the Rent Controller a Civil Court and therefore, sub-Section (2) is ultra vires as it disentitles an affected party to file an appeal or revision against an order in execution made under sub-Section (1).2. Mohan, J., has already upheld the validity of sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the Act in Purushothama Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. in W.P. No. 5819 of 1979, judgment dated 6th February, 1980, whe...
Tag this Judgment!Sathyalaya Social and Cultural Organisation Vs. the Station Director, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad186
ORDER1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to the respondents directing them to telecast feature films in Madras Doordarshan in full without in any way cutting, deleting, mutilating or altering any portion or portions thereof, in contravention of the censor certificates issued for the film concerned. The petitioner is a social and cultural organisation and the affidavit in support of the writ petition has been filed by its secretary. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents do not telecast feature films in full but effect cuts of certain scenes or songs and consequently, the sequence of the film is lost and the viewers are deprived the opportunity of enjoying the films in full, His further contention is that guidelines ought to be prescribed as to how feature films are to be telecast in the television centre so that the concerned officials working in the Madras Doordarshan can be prevented from making cuts in feature films or mutilating the pictures...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (Ct), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore Vs. N.C.R. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: [1986]63STC86(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These tax revision cases have been filed by the State against the decision of the Tribunal in T.A. Nos. 1010, 1011 and 1012 of 1976. Since the point involved is the same in all the above three tax cases which relate to the same assessee but for three different assessment years, they are dealt with together. The assessee is a manufacturer of groundnut oil and he is a registered dealer. For the assessment year 1969-70 he claimed exemption on the sale of oil and oil-cakes on the ground that he has been crushing gingelly and groundnut in country chekkus and therefore he is entitled to exemption under G.O. Press No. 1963, Revenue, dated 21st April, 1960. The assessing authority held that since the exemption under the notification is subject to the terms and conditions set out therein and the petitioner has not complied with some of the relevant terms and conditions, he is not entitled to the exemption under the said notification. Similar claim for exemption was also made in...
Tag this Judgment!Raman and Co. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad37
1. The plaintiff who has lost in both the Courts is the appellant in this second appeal. On 23-8-1974, the plaintiff, a partnership firm, booked a consignment of handloom cloth worth Rs. 481.50 through the defendants to be delivered at Naila, and another consignment of handloom goods on the same day worth Rs. 2437.50 to be delivered at Kesigna. As the goods were not taken delivery of by the consignee, they were re-booked to Erode at the request of the plaintiff. Open delivery disclosed a shortage in respect of the consignment booked to Naila of goods worth Rs. 189.25 which claim was settled by the Railways. But, in regard to the consignment to Kesigna open delivery was applied for on 10-4-1975 and it was granted. It disclosed a shortage of goods worth Rs. 749.50 which was not settled by the defendants Railways as, in their view, they are entitled to the protection u/s. 77(2) of the Railways Act. This contention of the defendants found favour with the courts below who dismissed the suit...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. South India Drum Manufacturing Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: [1985]60STC110(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this tax revision case filed by the State, the order of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty levied under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act has been questioned. It is seen that the assessee has purchased plugs, flanges, top and bottom die from other States to the tune of Rs. 1,21,440 during the assessment year 1978-79 and obtained C forms from the outer State seller. At the stage of the assessment, the assessing officer held that the above articles purchased by the assessee are not covered by the certificate of registration given to the assessee in form B and therefore, the penalty is leviable under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In this view he levied a penalty of Rs. 18,366. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the levy of penalty. When the matter went before the Tribunal on an appeal filed by the assessee, the Tribunal has held that the entries found in the certificate of registration obtained by the assessee in form B wo...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rajendran Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad44
ORDER1. This unnumbered writ petition has been filed by one Rajendran, seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order in the nature of writ, directing the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Hindu Religious Endowments, viz., the first respondent, to declare that respondents 2 to 4 viz., Sri Swaminathan alias Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi, the Sankaracharya of Kamakoti Peetam, Kanchipuram, Sri Venkataraman alias the Junior Sankaracharya of Kamakoti Peetam, and Sri Narayanan alias the Sub-Junior Sankaracharya of Kamakoti Peetam are not the Jagatguru Sankaracharyas, and to pass such further orders as the Court may deem fit.2. The averments made in the affidavit filed, in support of the writ petition are briefly as follows: In the 8th Century A. D., Aadi Sankara of Kaladi established four Sankaracharya Mathas based on the four Vedas in four places viz., the Jyothi Math in the Himalayas (Badri) in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Raman and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1984
Reported in: 1(1985)ACC138
Maheswaran, J. 1. The plaintiff who has lost in both the Courts is the appellant in this second appeal. On 23rd August, 1974, the plaintiff, partnership firm, booked a consignment of handloom cloth worths Rs. 481.50 through the defendants to be delivered at Naila, and another consignment of handloom goods on the same day worth Rs. 2,437.50 to be delivered at Kesigna As the goods were not taken delivery of by the consignee, they were re-booked to Erode at the request of the plaintiff. Open delivery disclosed a shortage in respect of the consignment booked to Naila of goods worth Rs. 189.25 which claim was settled by the Railways. But, in regard to the consignment to Kesigna open delivery was applied for on 10th April, 1975 and it was granted. It disclosed a shortage of goods worth Rs. 749.50 which was not settled by the defendant Railways as, in their view they are entitled to the protection under Section 77(2) of the Indian Railways Act. This contention of the defendants found favour w...
Tag this Judgment!Naraindas Menghraj Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1984
Reported in: [1985]156ITR697(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the accountable person with reference to the estate duty proceedings arising on the death of his father, one Menghraj Thakurdas : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deceased had the beneficial title to the site, viz., Plot No. 4, Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Madras, of the extent of 4 grounds and 610 sq. ft. and whether such beneficial title passed in his death under section 5 of the E.D. Act ?' 2. A building site measuring 4 grounds and 610 sq. ft. in Plot No. 4, Avadi Road, Kilpauk, Madras, was purchased under a registered sale deed dated May 25, 1963, in the name of Smt. Hemibai Mangharam, wife of Menghraj Thakurdas. The said Menghraj Thakurdas died on November 17, 1969. On the ground that the said deceased had provided funds for the purchase of the property in the name of his wife, Hemibai Mangharam, the deceased was t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »