Chennai Court February 1985 Judgments
Thulasiammal and ors. Vs. Joint Secretary to the Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1985
Reported in: 1987(30)ELT415(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In this batch of cases, the validity of the orders of detention made under section 3(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 is questioned. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the constitution of the Advisory Board under Section 8(a) of the Act is violative of Article 22(4) of the Constitution and that therefore the continued detention of the detenue for a period more than two months from the date of detention is illegal. Section 8 of the Act dealing with Advisory Board states that :- 'For the purposes of sub-clause (a) of clause (4), and sub-clause (c) of clause (7), of article 22 of the Constitution, - (a) the Central Government and each State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards each of which shall consist of a Chairman and two other persons possessing the qualifications specified in Sub-clause (a) clause (4) of article 22 of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Ponnuswamy Nadar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ492
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is to quash G.O.Ms. No. 1193, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, dated 31.7.1979. The short facts of the case are, the petitioner's grandfather by name Alagumalai Nadar executed registered document dated 12.4.1921 with a direction to performs certain charities. This was performed by Muthuswami Nadar, son of Alagumalai Nadar. Subsequently, the petitioner who is the son of Muthuswami Nadar, is performing these charities. The charities comprised of litting the lights with oil in the memorial erected in memory of the Coronation of King George V, Emperor of India, to perform water pandal charity, in the month of Chitrai every year on the occasion of the Brahmothsavam of Sri Meenakshisundareswarar Temple in Vilathikulam and to perform such other charities as the Hadgar in his discretion decides. The properties comprised in the document are the existing buildings and about two acres of land. The petitioner, as a prudent pers...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ganesh Match Works Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC285; 1985(20)ELT247(Mad)
1. This Writ appeal is directed against the judgment of Mohan, J. dismissing writ petition No. 4122 of 1975 filed by the appellant for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent dated 20-1-1975. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of safety matches. There was an inspection of his factory on 31-7-1969 and 13-8-1969 when some discrepancies were found in the accounts. One such discrepancy related to the account of Chlorate and use of raw materials such as wax and splints. Another discrepancy related to the consumption of veneers which was higher than the normal consumption during the months of January, February, March and April 1969. From the accounts it was noticed that the appellant had produced 422 gross of matches with 459 Kgs. of chlorate allotted to him for the manufacture of matches. The factory was not working during the months of May to December, 1969. Since the appellant did not satisfactorily account for the use of more chlorate and the higher c...
Tag this Judgment!C. Kamatchi Ammal Vs. Kattabomman Transport Corporation Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Mad295
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the declaration under S. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in relation to an extent of 85 cents situate in S. F. No. 219-8A in Kovilpatti belonging to the petitioner and published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 412-1983. The notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was published on 9-3-1972. The acquisition proposed is for the purposes of the construction pf a bus depot for Kattabomman transport ,Corporation Ltd., the first respondent herein. For the purpose of operating buses, the first respondent took on lease the property in question from the petitioner on 1-10-1974 on a rent of Rs. 750 per month, which was later raised to Rs. 1500 with effect from 1-4-1976. Since the property in question was found most suitable for housing the branch depot and workshop of the first respondent, proposals were initiated for the acquisition of the same and after approval of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Central Board of Excise and Customs Vs. Ashok Leyland, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC10; 1985(5)LC2320(Madras); 1985(22)ELT17(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J in W.P. No. 7472 of 1975 quashing the order, dated 25-7-1975 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, rejecting a revision petition filed by the respondent under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, and remitting the matter to the Central Board of Excise and Customs for deciding the case on merits. 2. The facts which led to the filing of the said writ petition are as follows - There was an order passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Madras (4th appellant herein) on 21-12-1972, under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act. Against that order, the respondent filed an appeal to the Appellate Collector (second appellant). That appeal was, however, rejected as barred by limitation on 24-4-1974. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision petition, calling it a review petition, to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (the 1st appellant). The first appellant rejected the same on 25-7-1975 on the g...
Tag this Judgment!S. Balasubramaniam Vs. Shamsu Thalreez and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ168
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The first defendant in O.S.No. 66 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, is the appellant in this appeal. The first respondent is the second plaintiff and respondents 2 to 5 are defendants 2 to 4 and 6 in the suit. It must be noted that the original plaintiff died and the second plaintiff got added as his legal representative in the suit itself. The suit was filed for a declaration that the lease claimed by the first defendant is null and void and the first defendant has no right to enjoy and consequently, the relief of possession was also asked for with damages, past and future. The suit was filed on the following allegations: Under the wakfnam a dated 20.12.1931, the suit properties were the subject-matter of endowment to Hameem Palli Madarsa Wakf absolutely and the first plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 are the turn huqdars. The second defendant, without any authority, leased the scheduled properties to the first defendant. The alleged lease...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Chinnasamy Chettiar and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad168
David Aninoussamy, J.1. In these two appeals against two judgments by different single Judges the point for determination is the same. Hence both of them have been argued together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In W.A. No. 1040 of 1983, the facts are summarily as follows : The 4th respondent applied for the grant of 'No objection certificate' to locate a touring cinema in S. No. 71/1 in Nachanapatti village, Omalur taluk. The appellant also applied for the same grant. The applications were preferred under R. 35 in Form A, Part II of the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Rules. Notices inviting objections were published in the office of the Panchayat Union, Kadayampattion 25-4-1981, and in the Salem District Gazette dt. 21-5-1981. The Collector after considering all the objections received, preferred the 4th respondent to the appellant, whose application was rejected. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras, who confirmed the order of the Collec...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Amir Abdul Kader Vs. the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad140; 1985(5)ECC277
ORDER1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent herein to return to the petitioner Rs.1.72 lakhs seized from him by the officials of the Enforcement. Directorate under a mahazar dt. 2-6-1983, under the following circumstances.On 2-6-1983, the officers of the Enforcement Directorate stopped the petitioner near Geetha Hotel. Mount Road, Madras 2 and searched him in the premises of Messrs Singh Trading Co. at No. 9 Blackers Road, Madras 2, which led to the recovery of a sum of Rs.1.72 lakhs in Indian currency from the person of the petitioner, which was seized by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, in the belief that the currency could be required for further investigation and proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Only on 3-12- 1984, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for the alleg...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Chinnasamy Chettiar and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ383
David Annousamy, J.1. In these two appeals against two judgments by different single Judges the point for determination is the same. Hence, both of them have been argued together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. In W.A. No. 1040 of 1983 the facts are summarily as follows: The fourth respondent applied for the grant of 'NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE' to locate a touring cinema in S. No. 71/1 in Nachanappatti Village, Omalur taluk. The appellant also applied for the same grant. The applications were preferred under Rule 35 in Form A Part-II of the Tamil Nadu Cinematograph Rules. Notices inviting objections were published in the Office of the Panchayat Union, Kadayampatti on 25.4.1981 and in the Salem District Gazette dated 21.5.1981. The Collector after considering all the objections received, preferred the fourth respondent to the appellant, whose application was rejected. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras, who confirmed the order of the...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United India Fire and General Insurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1985
Reported in: [1990]182ITR355(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. For the assessment year 1971-72 and 1972-73, the following two questions have been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 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 gross dividend income should be deducted while computing the chargeable profits for the purpose of surtax and not the dividend income for 1971-72 and 1972-73 and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Income-tax Officer to exclude the sum of Rs. 2,45,000 for calculating the calculating the cost of investments for the application of rule 2 of the Second Scheduled to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the assessment year 1971-72 ' 2. So far as the first question is concerned, we find that it is covered by a decision rendered by this court in T.C. Nos. 1196 to 1198 of 1977, dated Octob...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »