Chennai Court July 1984 Judgments
T.O.M. Sariba Begum Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1984
Reported in: 1985(5)ECC45
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by the wife of one Esmail who was detained u/s. 3(1)(i) and (iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of detention is dated 20-10-83. He was arrested and detained on 10-11-83. Immediately thereafter the grounds of detention were served on the detenu. He sent his written representation on 28th November, 1983 with a request that he may be permitted (1) to be represented by an advocate and (2) to examine witnesses on his behalf. In the meantime, on 25-11-83 itself the Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board u/s. 8(b) of the Act with a statement that no representation had so far been received from the detenu. After the receipt of the representation, by their communication dt. 28th November, 83 the Government forwarded the written representation of the detenu also to the Advisory Board. On the req...
Tag this Judgment!J. Ramarnoorthy Vs. Corporation of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad175
ORDER1. Can the Corporation of Madras levy charges for parking of vehicles in the parking lots, and that too, at the rates now prescribed by the Corporation for parking of four wheelers, three wheelers, and two wheelers? According to the petitioner, the corporation cannot levy charges and even if it can, the charges prescribed are arbitrary and unreasonable, hence the petitioner has filed this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus to make the Corporation of Madras (the first respondent herein) forbear from collecting parking fee in respect of his vehicles whenever they are parked in the parking lots set apart by the first respondent.2. The petitioner's case, as contained in the affidavit sworn to by him, is to the following effect: The petitioner is a businessman and has his place of business in Godown St, Madras 1. In connection with his business, he is owning three cars. It has been his practice to go to his place of business every morning by car and then keep the vehicle park...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore Vs. Govard ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1984
Reported in: [1986]63STC109(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this tax revision case filed by the State, the order of the Tribunal cancelling the levy of penalty on the respondent-assessee under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act has been challenged. The assessee was finally assessed on a taxable turnover of Rs. 6,35,788.00 for the assessment year 1973-74 by an order dated 31st March, 1975. Their place of business was earlier inspected by the Intelligence Wing on 6th August, 1973, and certain slips had been recovered and it was found that slip No. 7 revealed sale of pig-iron of a quantity of 24.185 tonnes for the value of Rs. 15,357.48. After the assessment order was passed, the succeeding officer found in the assessment order a suppression of Rs. 15,357.48 and therefore held that a levy of penalty is called for in this case. He took the probable suppressions to be Rs. 71,527.96 and levied a penalty of Rs. 679.00. The assessee preferred an appeal and the appeal was partly allowed, reducing the penalty to an ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. Ganesa Udayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1984
Reported in: [1988]172ITR199(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. Tax Cases Nos. 361 of 1978 and 1219 of 1979 arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Tribunal in respect of the assessments made under the Agricultural Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 on the respondent/assessee. The other three cases arise out of the orders of the Tribunal in respect of the assessments made for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-44 and 1974-75 in relation to the same respondent. Hence, the question involved in all these cases being the same, they are dealt with together. However, it is unnecessary to refer to the facts with reference to each case and it will suffice to refer to the facts in Tax Case No. 361 of 1978 in which the Tribunal has given the main judgment.2. The assessee in all these cases is one Ganesa Udayar of Pilliarnatham, Kallaperambur Post, Thanjavur Taluk. For the year 1975-76, there was an assessment under the Agricultural Income-tax Act wherein all the lands in his possession and enjoyment were assess...
Tag this Judgment!Appello Agencies Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1984
Reported in: [1987]66STC386(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This tax case has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, rejecting its appeal filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 2. The assessee is a dealer in leather covers. It reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,90,476.67 and Rs. 1,67,806.69 respectively for the year 1973-74. The assessing authority, after looking into the accounts, made a best of judgment assessment determining the total turnover at Rs. 1,95,512.92 and Rs. 1,72,932.74 respectively by his assessment order dated 31st March, 1975. The assessing authority levied the tax at 3 1/2 per cent for the period 1st April, 1973 to 7th August, 1973, during which the difference of tax between 15 per cent and 3 1/2 per cent had been waived and at 15 per cent for the period from 8th August, 1973 to 31st March, 1974. The assessee did not prefer any appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Therefore the said assessment order had become final. However, on 4t...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kasthuri Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1984
Reported in: [1985]59STC141(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In this tax revision case filed by the assessee, two items of turnover are in dispute; one of Rs. 12,500 said to be the sale value of a second hand lorry sold by the assessee, and two, a sum of Rs. 37,452.81 said to be transport charges for the transport of bricks supplied by the assessee to her various customers. So far as the first item is concerned, the Tribunal has held that though the assessee has proved that her sale is not the first sale in the State, she has not proved that the earlier sales had suffered tax and that therefore she is liable to be taxed on the sale proceeds of the second hand lorry. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's contention that she is not carrying on any business in the sale and purchase of lorries and that her business being the manufacture of bricks, she cannot be taken to be a dealer in lorry and taxed on the sales of lorry. 2. Learned counsel for the assessee contends that the Tribunal has thrown a heavier onus on the assessee to...
Tag this Judgment!Veermalai Muthiriar Vs. E. Srinivas Muthiriyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad128
1. The suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit property, which is 0-80 cents in Survey No. 46/7 in Perugamani Village. The suit property which originally belonged to one Periyanachi Muthiriar was settled in favour of one Thangaiyan, son of the plaintiff/appellant on 27th Dec. 1957. Thangaiyan died. The plaintiff, as the only legal heir of Thangaiyan, is entitled to the suit property. Defendant I claiming to be a cultivating tenant, claimed possession with him and the plaintiff has to, therefore, file this suit.2. Defendants, one Manickathammal, remained ex parte.3. The trial court, on the basis of certain documents, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and granted a decree. The appellate Judge reversed that finding and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal.4. A learned Judge of this C...
Tag this Judgment!Veeramalai Muthiriar Vs. Srinivasa Muthiriyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)2MLJ269
G. Maheswaran, J.1. The suit, out of which the second appeal arises, was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit property, which is 0.80 cents in Survey No. 46/7 in Perugamani Village. The suit property which originally belonged to one Periyanachi Muthiriar was settled in favour of one Thangaiyan son of the plaintiff/appellant on 27th December, 1957. Thangaiyan died. The plaintiff, as the only legal heir of Thangaiyan, is entitled to the suit property. The first defendant, claiming to be a cultivating tenant, claimed possession with him and the plaintiff has to, therefore, file this suit.2. The second defendant, one Manickathammal, remained ex parte.3. The trial Court, on the basis of certain documents came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and granted a decree. The appellate Judge reversed that finding and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has filed this seco...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.C. Veerappan Vs. the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ7
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. An order passed by the second respondent appointing the petitioner as a Fit Person for a Kattalal of specific endowment known as Sri Raman Chettiar Kattalal attached to Sri Marudheeswarar temple, Thiryvanmiyur, Madras, was set aside by the first respondent herein and it is the validity of that order that is impugned by the petitioner herein.2. The endowment was created by the petitioner's grandfather and it was managed and administered by him during his lifetime. After his lifetime his son, one Somasundaram Chettiar, who is the petitioner's father, was administering the endowment. Now there is a scheme governing the endowment and as per the said scheme, the endowment has to be ' administered by a Board of trustees consisting of three persons viz., (1) a descendent of the donor; (2) a representative of the Nagarathar community; and (3) a member belonging to the Scheduled caste. All the three persons have to be appointed by the competent authority exercising power...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thiagarajan and anr. Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1984
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas328(Mad)
S.A. Kader, J.1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 482 of 1979 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Madurai, in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the petitioners. 2. The respondent, Assistant Registrar of Companies, Madras, has launched criminal prosecution against Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and five others on the following averments. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madhurai , the first accused in the above case, is a public company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The second accused was the managing director, accused Nos. 3 and 4, managing directors designate, the fifth accused was a director and the sixth accused was the secretary. The returns filed by the company under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, showed that a sum of Rs. 1,95,000 in respect of forty accounts remained unpaid to the depositors during the year ending March 31...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »