Chennai Court February 1985 Judgments
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. East Coast Constructions and Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC337(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this tax revision case filed by the revenue, the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that the turnover of Rs. 9,55,485.78 could not be brought to charge under section 7-A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, has been challenged. 2. The assessees are building contractors and engineers. For the assessment year 1980-81, they reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 54,161.96. This however did not include a turnover of Rs. 9,55,485.78 which represented the purchase value of sand and blue-metal from unregistered dealers, which the assessee had used in the construction of the buildings. The assessee claimed that the said sum of Rs. 9,55,485.78 representing the purchase price of blue-metal and sand cannot be brought to charge under section 7-A of the Act. That contention was negatived by the assessing authority and the said turnover was brought to charge. The matter was taken in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who also sustained th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Thanikodi Vs. Ramuthayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad263
1. This Civil MisceIlaneous Second Appeal is directed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dismissing the petition by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband-appellant filed a petition against the wife, the respondent, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Courts below have clearly found that the wife has filed a suit for maintenance and that this application for restitution is filed as a counterblast to that suit for maintenance.2. The only ground, the counsel for the appellant takes is that the Courts below erred in not attempting a reconciliation between the parties. It is no doubt true that S. 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act casts a duty on the Court in the first instance, in a matrimonial cause, to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. But, it. is only when the Courts find that there may be some chance of saving the marriage that the Court would try to make a rapprochement and not otherwise. The Courts ...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Properties and Building Society (Pvt.) Ltd., Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ362
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, which is a private limited company; has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the assessment to urban land tax with reference to R.S. No. 1632/6 part and R.S. No. 1632/13 part in Egmore village in Assessment No. 4/BK 52 Egmore, dated 15.12.1977 and quash the same in so far as it relates to faslis 1388 to 1394. Originally the petitioner owned for purposes of development and sale an extent of 30 grounds comprised in Survey No. 1632/4 re-numbered as Survey Nos. 1632/13 and 1632/6 in Egmore having purchased the same under sale deed dated 28.4.1972. While developing portions of the extent so owned by the petitioner, the petitioner did so in stages utilising separate portions of the land owned by it. The first stage was the formation and the sale of flats in a portion of about 5 grounds and 1800 sq.ft. known as 'Chesney Nilgiris'. The second...
Tag this Judgment!Methala Balarama Veetil Vannathan Veetil Pathooty Umma Vs. the Adminis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ195
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. The writ petition and the civil revision petition are dealt with together as the petitioner and the main contesting respondents are the same and closely interconnected questions arise for decision. The circumstances giving rise to these proceedings may be briefly stated as under: The petitioner (for short in the writ petition as well as the civil revision petition) is the owner of Survey No. 354/2 and Survey No. 392/2 (corresponding to R.S.No. 84/4) within the desam of Palloor Mahe. The third respondent in the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the Kudikidappukari) (who is the same as the first respondent in the civil revision petition) was living in a portion of Survey No. 392/2. She claimed rights as Kudikidappu to Survey No. 354/2 and also offered to pay the expenses therefor. Though it appears that the Kudikidappukari orally agreed to do so, nevertheless, she filed an application for recognising her as Kudikidappukari and on 30.11.1973, an order was pass...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1985
Reported in: (1986)53CTR(Mad)104; [1986]157ITR112(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this petition filed under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee seeks a reference to this court on the following questions : ' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order under section 263 a passed by the Commissioner is valid in law (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law and justified in modifying the order of the Commissioner and restoring the matter to the Income-tax Officer when the appeal is against the order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (iii) Whether it is open to the Tribunal to restore the matter to the Income-tax Officer after having held that the Commissioner had failed to positively establish that the expenditure on commission will not qualify for weighted deduction (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in not cancelling the disallowance of weighted deduction on commission payments when their finding is that the Commissioner had failed t...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamilnadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1985
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ532Mad
G. Ramanujam, J.1. These two writ appeals are directed against the Judgment of Venkataswami, J. in W.P. No. 4024 of 1983. The first writ appeal has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Federation) and the second writ appeal has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu. The circumstances under which the said writ petition came to be filed by the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) may briefly be stated. The Dairy Development Department of the State of Tamil Nadu established two dairies one at Madhavaram and the other at Ayanavaram. Later a Corporation known as the Tamil Nadu Dairy Development Corporation was formed and the two dairies were transferred to the said Corporation. The Corporation also established and ran a third dairy at Ambattur. On 1st February, 1981 the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation was formed. The Union issued a notice of tok...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A. Sharbudeen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1985
Reported in: 1(1986)ACC40
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision case filed by the accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C, against the Judgment, dated 5th October, 1982 in Crl. Appeal No. 164/72 confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 304-(A) of IPC, by the trial Court, but modifying the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months is to one of fine of Rs. 1,000/ and suspension of licence of the accused for driving for a period of one year (sic).2. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 12th May. 1982, at about 4.15 p.m., he drove the city Bus bearing Registration No. TMN 5829 in a negligent manner and caused the death of Pandiyammal, a passenger, in the said bus when she was getting down from the bus at East Gate Bus Stop, Madurai town.3. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exs. P1 to P7 were filed.4. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:O...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Powder Co. Ltd., Tirumangalam and anr. Vs. the State of Tamil Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: (1985)IILLJ376Mad
ORDER1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, (Act 46 of 1981), hereinafter referred to as the Act. This Act came into force on 1st January, 1982. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act shows that a large number of workers in industrial establishments were kept under temporary rolls and were given only consolidated wages, which were far below the occupational wages and did not carry the benefit of dearness allowance paid to permanent employees. Similarly, they were denied various other benefits like payment of festival, cyclone and marriage advances, payment of ex-gratia over and above the statutory bonus, supply of uniforms and tea, preference for the dependents of the employees in the matter of employment, etc. The Act, was, therefore, enacted by way of a special legislation, to confer permanent status to the workmen in variou...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.T.C. Sanghvi and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: [1987]66STC69(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. In these tax revision cases filed by the State the common question that arises is as to the scope and ambit of section 12(5)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In each of these cases the assessee has submitted the returns belatedly for the year 1980-81 and the assessing officer has chosen to levy penalty under section 12(5)(ii) not for the actual period of delay but levied the penalty taking into account the expression 'for the month or part thereof' occurring in section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. According to the assessing authority even if there is a delay of a few days, that being a part of the month, penalty could be levied for the whole month. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have held that the penalty could be levied for the actual number of days and not taking into account the month as the basis. The said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Revenue on the ground that the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. A.R. Duraisamy Chettiar and Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1985
Reported in: [1986]61STC360(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this tax case filed by the State, the decision of the Tribunal holding that the turnover of Rs. 1,86,912 represents second sales and therefore the same is not taxable has been challenged before us. The case of the assessee as regards the said disputed turnover is that all his sellers were registered dealers in the State and therefore their sales alone are taxable and not the sales of the assessee of the same goods, which amounts to second sales in the State. It has not been disputed by the revenue that the sellers of the assessee are registered dealers and they have also issued sale bills for the sales to the assessee. The assessee claims exemption in relation to the said turnover which according to it represents second sales effected by the assessee. According to the revenue, since the sellers though registered have not paid tax on their sales the assessee cannot have the benefit of second sales with regard to the said turnover. Referring to the decisions in Govinda...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »