Chennai Court April 1985 Judgments
New Shanmugha Traders Vs. the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ503
ORDERV. Ratnam, J.1. This writ petition, after service of notice of motion, is admitted, and at the request of learned Counsel on both sides, the hearing of the writ petition is advanced.2. Pending disposal of an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, the petitioner prayed for stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 81,216/- Penalty of Rs. 40,403/-Additional Sales Tax of Rs. 14,216/- and a Surcharge of Rs. 4,060/- totalling to Rs. 1,39,895/- stated to be due and recoverable from the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner had furnished Bank Guarantee No. 21/9, dated 4.12,1984 for the entire tax liability of Rs. 1,39,8957/-, and prayed that stay of collection of the tax and the penalty may be granted. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner is good enough, but nevertheless purporting to exercise what ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah D.V. Seetharamayya Bahadur Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Urban Land ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1987Mad105
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, of Padmanabhan J. in W. P. 325 of 1978, allowing the writ petition filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Madras the respondent herein, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the. order dated 20- 11 -1975 on the file of the Urban Land Tax Tribunal, Madras.2. The appellant is the owner of the urban land in R. S. Nos. 1575/ 1 and 1575/ 13, measuring about 50 grounds, situate in Kasthuri Iyengar Road, Mylapore. The. assessment was made under the Urban Land Tax Act, 1963, which came into tore on 1-7-1963. The same was challenged before this Court as having violated Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution and a Full Bench of this Court struck down S. 6 of that Act, as a result of which no assessment could be validly made under the provisions of the said Act. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court in : [1970]75ITR603(SC) . Asst. Commr. of Urban Land Tax, Madras v. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd , has set aside ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sushila Vs. the Tahsildar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ412
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner in respect of the same property but for two different reliefs....2. Writ Petition No. 4946/78 has been filed for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 are void and unenforceable in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Door No. 51, Ward 27, Survey No. 1330/1.3. Writ Petition No. 9179 of 1981 is for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the third respondent dated 8th May, 1978 refusing to grant exemption under the Urban Land Tax Act and to direct the third respondent to grant the exemption in respect of the petitioner's land referred to above.4. In Writ Petition No. 9179/81, the petitioner seeks exemption for the lands in question under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act. I therefore proceed to deal with the petitioner's contention in Writ Petition No. 9179/81 in the first ins...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. J.K.K. Sundararajah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: [1986]160ITR370(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. At the instance the Revenue, the following two questions have been referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with reference to the three assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, only 50% of the share income of the assessee from M/s. Sundaram Spinning Mills, M/s. Kandaswamy Weaving Factory and Company, M/s. Quality Traders and M/s. Super Textiles could be assessed in the hands of the assessee for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, only 50% of 1,17,503 and Rs. 9,103 can be assessed as the income of the assessee from the export firms for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, respectively 7' 2. The assessee was the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his minor son, Manickam, his wife, Thirumathi Rajammal, and six minor daughters. The ...
Tag this Judgment!A. Palanivel Chettiar Vs. R. Elumalai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1985Mad303
1. The judgment-debtor, defendant in O.S. 250 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, is the petitioner in this revision. The decree-holder, plaintiff in the suit, is the respondent herein. A money decree was passed on 19-12-1978. On 19-81982, in E.A. 1507 of 1982, full satisfaction of the decree was recorded. On 21-8-1982, the decree-holder took out an application, I.A. 3471 of 1981 to amend the decree to incorporate the award of interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 29-5-1972 to 19-12-1978 and thereafter at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and to include costs of Rs. 267. This application has been allowed by the Court below, following a pronouncement of a single Judge of the Patna High Court in Shyamal Bihari v. Girish Narain, . This revision is directed against the orders of the court below.2. Mr. S. Desikan, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor, would submit that once full satisfaction has been entered, the decree becomes extinct, the Court becomes fu...
Tag this Judgment!P. Thandavarayan Vs. Y.L. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad38
1. The tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the landlady within the meaning of the Act. The landlady sought the eviction of the tenant, on two grounds, namely, wilful default in the payment of rents and commission of acts of waste as are likely to impair the value or utility of the building. The Controller negatived the two grounds put forth by the landlady and dismissed the petition for eviction. The landlady appealed and she succeeded before the Appellate Authority, which countenanced only her case of commission of acts of waste against the tenant and ordered eviction of the tenant and that is how the tenant is before this Court by way of this revision, challenging the orders of the Appellate Authority.2. Mr. B. Soundarapandian, learned counsel for the tenant, petitioner herein, submits that what the tenant actually did was only conver...
Tag this Judgment!P. Mahaveer Chand and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: 1986(7)ECC80
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. These two petitions have been filed for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for releasing the detenus who are detained under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, hereinafter called the COFEPOSA. The detention orders in respect of these two petitioners are dated 24th November, 1984.2. Four points were raised in these writ petitions. Firstly it was contended that the mahazar for the seizure had not been prepared in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and it had not been shown to be a legal one and that the detaining authority presuming it to be in accordance with law, vitiates the entire order. This ground which is factual seems to be incorrect. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the seizure was not effected in accordance with law mainly on the ground that the Intelligence Officer of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras, who searched and seized the gold articl...
Tag this Judgment!K. Ramraj Vs. Narasimha Dass Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1985
Reported in: (1985)2MLJ263
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 384 of 1977 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of amount due under a promissory note bearing the date 20th April, 1974. The suit on the promissory note had come to be laid on 14th April, 1977. The defendant contested the suit mainly putting forth two contentions. One is that there is material alteration of the date of the suit promissory note which was executed only on 20th March, 1974, and not on 20th April, 1974, and the other is that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976 and Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. The parties placed their evidence, oral and documentary and that was the subject-matter of assessment by the first court and it countenanced the pleas of the defendant that there was material alteration of the suit promissory note and in any event the defendant is entitled to t...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruppur Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Khimji Poonja and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1985
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas349(Mad)
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. In all these three appeals, a common question which is involved relates to the construction of the notification issued by the State Government under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertakings (Special provisions) Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Admittedly, the three respondents have filed application before the company court in their capacity as creditors in which they have asked for winding up of the appellant company under sections 433(c) (e) and (f) of the Companies Act. the defence of the appellant company is that the STate Government having issued a notification under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the proceeding in the three company petitions cannot go on because the monetary liabilities on the basis of which the applications for winding up have been made stand suspended as a result of the two notifications. At this stage, it would be proper to refer to the two notifications. the first notification is dated August 4,1984, and is made in...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruppur Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd Vs. Khimji Poonja and C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1985
Reported in: AIR1986Mad12
Chandurkar, C.J.1. In all these three appeals, a. common question which is involved relates to the construction of the notification issued by the State Government under S. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Admittedly, the three respondents have filed applications before the Company Court in their capacity as creditors in which they have asked for winding up of the appellant company under S. 433(c)(e) and (f) of the Companies Act. The defence of the appellant company is that the State Government having issued a notification under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act, the proceeding in the three company petitions cannot go on because the monetary liabilities on the basis of which the applications for winding up have been made stand suspended as a result of the two notifications. At this stage it would be proper to refer to the two notifications. The first notification is dated 4th August 1984 and is made in exercise of the powers...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »