Chennai Court July 1984 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.
Southern Trading Company Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-04-1984
Reported in: [1985]60STC111(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The disputed turnover in this case is Rs. 3,61,545.80. The assessee's case is that this turnover represents seconds sales of yarn and therefore the same is entitled to exemption. But the case of the Revenue is that this turnover represents the sales effected by the assessee in respect of cotton yarn entrusted to it by the mills as a selling agent. The assessee relied on certain pro forma invoices issued by the mills wherein certain prices were mentioned. On the basis of the said pro forma invoices the assessee contended that there is a sale from the mills to the assessee and there is a subsequent sale by the assessee which is the subject-matter in dispute now. The Tribunal after going through the contract between the assessee and the Somasundaram Super Spinning Mills found that the assessee has been appointed as a selling agent for the yarn produced by the mills, that under the contract the assessee has to get the stock from the mills after paying a part of the value o...
B.K. Shankar Vs. L.M. Rajalakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: AIR1985Mad81
ORDER1. The tenant, against whom the authorities below have passed an order for eviction from the premises in his occupation on an application filed in that behalf by the respondents herein under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is the petitioner. The premises bearing door No. 140 V. M. Street, Royapettah, Madras 14, admittedly belonged to one K. V. Panchanadam, who died in January 1980 and his legal representatives are the respondents herein. The petitioner is a tenant in occupation of that premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 75, payable on or before the 1st of the succeeding calendar month. According to the case of the respondents originally, the letting out of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was for residential purposes, but that some, time later, the petitioner used the premises both for residential and non-residential purposes, which user was a...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corpo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: [1991]189ITR670(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The following question has been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs.4,94,082 being the interest on moneys borrowed from the Government of Tamil Nadu and by issue of debentures against the interest income of Rs. 3,24,427 being interest on short-term deposits with the banks ?'2. An identical question came up for consideration before this court in two earlier decisions one in Addl. CIT v. Madras Fertilisers Ltd. : [1980]122ITR139(Mad) and the other in T. C. No. 611 of 1979 judgment dated April 19, 1984 CIT v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. : [1985]156ITR542(Mad) , wherein this court has held that the interest paid on its borrowal for the purpose of the business is deductible from...
Kannika Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1984
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1044
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition by the wife of the detenu for a writ of habeas corpus to produce the detenu and set him at liberty.2. The husband of the petitioner, one Gemini alias Lakshmanan was detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities and Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) on the ground that he is a habitual criminal and that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain him under the provisions of that Act. He was accordingly detained by an order dt. 30-1-1984, and kept in custody in the central prison. The grounds of detention referred to the main instance as one of murder that took place on 10-1-1984. On that day, it is alleged that the detenu with his associates about six in number formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the intention of attacking and committi...
Ajit India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Raghava and Veera and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1984
Reported in: AIR1986Mad151
ORDER1. This is an application by the debtors in the insolvency Notice No. 28 of 1983 to set aside the said insolvency Notice.2. The averments in the affidavit are as follows: -The first debtor is a partnership firm and it ceased to do any business from the year 1977. Two insolvency petitions viz., I.P.No. 129 of 1976 and I.P.No. 66 of 1977, were filed *to adjudicate the firm as insolvent. The firm has been adjudicated as insolvent along with its two partners, viz., second and third debtors in I.P.No. 129 of 1976. The order of adjudication was confirmed in the Appeal O.S.A.No. 80 of 1977. A further appeal to the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 2020 of 1978 has been admitted and is pending as a civil appeal in which all further proceedings have been stayed. The act of insolvency alleged in this application is under Ss. 9(d)(iii) and 9(g) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act III of 1909, hereinafter referred to as the Act. After the adjudication by the Insolvency Court, the first debtor/fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›