Chennai Court December 1985 Judgments
A.M. Paulraj Vs. the Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad248
Chandurkar, C. J. 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner whose petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which he had asked for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from proceeding any further with the Notice No. 45 dt. 1st July 1985 against the petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned single Judge.2. The petitioner is the Editor of a Tamil monthly magazine 'Vaniga Ottrumai'. He had published an article in the Feb. 1983 issue of the said magazine criticising vehemently the members of the Legislature. The Privileges Committee of the Seventh Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly called upon the petitioner on 29-11-1983 to give an explanation for the said writing in the Feb. 1983 issue of his magazine. The petitioner appeared before the Privileges Committee and owned full responsibility for what he had written in his magazine. On 28-3-1984, the Privileges Committee recommended that the petitioner should be punished by awarding a sentence of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kwality Dyes and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise and Customs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT238(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a registered firm of partnership. It is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic organic dyestuff falling under Tariff 14-D of the First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It is common ground that on 11-9-1985, a group of Central Excise officials under the leadership of the 2nd respondent herein visited the petitioner's factory and informed a partner that on information, they had come to the factory to check up the accounts and the stock held in the finished goods store room of the factory. After checking the accounts and the stocks, they found no discrepancy. Subsequently, the officers visited the manufacturing hall of the factory premises and inquired about the materials stored in 30 drums, which were in the manufacturing hall. While it is the case of the petitioner that the 30 drums contained semi-finished goods, the officers who inspected, took the stand that they are finished goods and apprehended that t...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: [1987]166ITR240(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. This is petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Commissioner of Income-tax in his proceedings in Case No. 143(9) 85-86/CBE, dated May 24, 1985, and to quash the same. That was an order under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and that reads as follows : 'The account books and other documents, (i) as per annexure 'SS' - 22 items to the panchanama dated November 28, 1984, (ii) as per annexures SSK-S and S/SSK/SR to the panchanama dated November 29, 1984, (iii) documents listed in the panchanama dated November 28, 1984, prepared in Ooty Office, were seized under section 132(8) from the above assessee on November 28, 1984, and November 29, 1984. It is necessary to retain the account books and other documents in the ADI's custody for the following reasons : For further investigation. I, therefore, approve the ADI's proposal to retain the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Tmt. Mena Kawar Vs. Corporation of Madras by Its Commissioner and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ404
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner submitted a plan for constructing of a premises in No. 8, Ayyamudali Street for basement floor, ground, magazine and first floor. The said plan was sanctioned by the Corporation of Madras, the first respondent herein, in B.A.O. XI/171/82 dated 28.12.1982. In the process of construction the petitioner constructed ground to third floor without basement and magazine floors. The details of the same are given below:Area sanctioned Area constructed.Ground Floor - 1140 s.ft. 2,000 s.ftFirst Floor - 400 ' 2,000 'Second Floor - - 2,000 s. ft.Third Floor - - 800 2. For the unauthorised construction in relation to ground floor and first floor, criminal action was initiated on 2.5.1984. The petitioner was fined Rs. 110. For the illegal construction of second floor criminal action was initiated on 9.7.1984. The petitioner was fined a sum of Rs. 100 by the 19th Metropolitan Magistrate. With regard to both these...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: (1986)51CTR(Mad)71; [1986]159ITR601(Mad)
V. RAMASWAMI J. - The following three questions have been referred at the instance of the Revenue :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the benefit under sections 80K and 80M should be granted with reference to the gross dividend income without deducting proportionate management expenses ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs, 7,02,054 representing the appreciation in the value of share investments held by the assessee, made by the Income-tax Officer under the second part of rule 5(b) of Schedule I to the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?3. Whether the interpretation given by the Tribunal to rule 5(b) of Schedule I to the Income-tax Act is valid and justified ?'The second and third questions are covered by the decision in CIT v. Motor & General Insurance Co. Ltd. : [1983]140ITR451(Mad) and in the light of that judgment, we have to ans...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vs. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Co. V. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1985
Reported in: (1987)51CTR(Mad)154; [1987]166ITR244(Mad)
V. RAMASWAMI J. - This is petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the Commissioner of Income-tax in his proceedings in Case No. 143(9) 85-86/CBE, dated May 24, 1985, and to quash the same. That was an order under section 132(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and that reads as follows :'The account books and other documents, (i) as per annexure SS - 22 items to the panchanama dated November 28, 1984, (ii) as per annexures SSK-S and S/SSK/SR to the panchanama dated November 29, 1984, (iii) documents listed in the panchanama dated November 28, 1984, prepared in Ooty Office, were seized under section 132(8) from the above assessee on November 28, 1984, and November 29, 1984. It is necessary to retain the account books and other documents in the ADIs custody for the following reasons :For further investigation.I, therefore, approve the ADIs proposal to retain the account book...
Tag this Judgment!Lajja Bai Vs. Rajamani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ50
S.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She filed the suit for a declaration of her title to the suit property and also for recovery of possession of the same after the removal of the superstructure standing thereon put up by the defendant. She also prayed in the plaint for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further putting up constructions on several grounds which I need not dilate. The trial Court decreed the suit in so far as the declaration sought for by the plaintiff with respect to the suit property as per the Commissioner's plan Ex.C-2 is concerned and in other respects the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No. 190 of 1981 before the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli. At a time when the appeal was taken up by the learned District Judge, the plaintiff/appellant herein did not appear and the Counsel appearing for the appellant had reported no instructions with the result, the lo...
Tag this Judgment!P. Dhanaraj and anr. Vs. M. Chellan Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ207
S. Swamikkannu, J.1. The Court has laid down that unless the documents filed in a case are proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the contents of the same should not be used as evidence. The decision in Manicka Mudaliar v. Shanmugasundara Mudaliar : (1982)2MLJ301 may be looked in, in this regard. In the instant case before us, both the sides have produced certain documents which were given exhibit numbers by the trial Court. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court took the contents of those documents without any proof and have discussed regarding the relevancy of the same. This is something alien to the well recognised principle of law relating to evidence as available in the statute book of India. When both the sides have not taken care to examine any witness on either side so as to prove the documents, it is strange that both the Courts below have taken the contents of the above documents as acceptable evidence in accordance with law and tak...
Tag this Judgment!Munusami Mudaliar (Died) and ors. Vs. Thanikajalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1985
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ323
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The first defendant in four suits on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore was the original appellant in these four second appeals. He died and his legal representatives were brought on record. One of the legal representatives also died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The respondents in all the second appeals, except S.A. No. 414 of 1980, where the fourth respondent is stated to be subsequent purchaser, were the plaintiffs in the four suits. Certain facts need recapitulation. There were four brothers, Shanmuga Mudaliar, Kanga Mudaliar, Poonuswami Mudaliar and Thanda-varaya Mudaliar. Shanmuga Mudaliar died in 1961. He left a Will marked in the case as Ex.A-2 on 21.11.1960. I shall presently refer to the relevant recitals in the said will since the controversy in the second appeals centres only around the said recitals. Suffice it to state at this stage that the suit properties are relatable to schedule A in the said Will and the...
Tag this Judgment!Maganbai Galada and ors. Vs. Mool Chand Jain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1985
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ387
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The revision petitioners are landlords whose claim for additional accommodation of premises in the occupation of the respondent was decreed by the Rent Controller, but that order has been set aside by the Appellate Authority. The petitioners are mother and her four sons who came to Court with a case that they had expanded their business and wanted to start a retail business in electrical goods. They are carrying on their business in the name and style of Ram Electrical Company. The tenant denied the bona fides of the need of the landlords.2. On the evidence the Rent Controller found that the total turnover of the business has increased from Rs. 4,65,243.59 in 1977-78 to Rs. 12,04,683 in 1979-80. The Rent Controller also disbelieved the story put out for the first time in the evidence that the petition for eviction was made because the tenants did not agree to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as pagadi. The Rent Controller took the view that even though a notice was given...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »