Chennai Court March 1986 Judgments
JalaluddIn Vs. Mohammed Ismail, S/O. Sikkandar Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ477
ORDERT.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The tenant (2nd respondent in the eviction petition) is the revision petitioner herein. The 1st respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The tenant/revision petitioner contended that he is not a tenant, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them, that he is the owner of the land and that he has put up the superstructure at his own cost. Later, the landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking amendment of the description of property. In the petition for eviction, he had described the subject-matter as a thatched house, and he prayed for an amendment that the subject-matter is a tiled roof house. The 2nd respondent (tenant) objected to this amendment, but the Rent Controller overruled the objection and ordered amendment. Aggrieved by this, he has come forward with this revision petition.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/ tenant argued that Order 6, Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of Madura Limited Vs. Bank of Baroda Represented by Its Agent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ393
T. Sathiadev, J.1. First defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff is the sole respondent, which filed O.S. No. 520 of 1977 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,491.26 due from first defendant and seven others.2. Plaintiff stated as follows : Messrs. Vijayamohini Mills Ltd., Thirumala, Trivandrum-4, was one of the constituents of first defendant bank. One Sundaram Chettiar was one of the Directors, and the second defendant is his wife, and defendants 3 to 6 are his son and daughters. The Mill entered into a contract with a Japanese firm for the purchase of one Kemitsu Doubler Winder with spares and accessories of the total value of Rs. 43,50,000, Japanese yens on deferred payment basis, payable in 20 half yearly instalments. Plaintiff Bank at the instance of the first defendant and late Sundaram Chettiar executed a letter of credit- cum-guarantee on 15th October, 1966 (Ex. A2) in favour of the foreign sellers. In consideration of this guarantee being given...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC49; 1987(29)ELT865(Mad)
ORDER1. The matter arises under Central Excise and Salt Act. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is a public limited company. It was incorporated on 2-6-1982. Its main object is to manufacture tyres and tubes for automobiles and other rubber products. Some tax concession is being extended by the Central Government to new industries since commencement of production with a view to promote industrial growth in this country. It is the case of the respondents since 1976 some tax concession was being issued as regards rubber industry such as Notification Nos. 198/76; 142/78; 268/82; 88/84 and 159/85. In this case, I am concerned with Notification Nos. 268/82, 88/84 and 159/85. At once, it may be pointed out that the petitioner relies on Notification No. 268/82 undergoing slight change in No. 88/84, which was rescinded under Notification No. 159/85 on 15-7-1985. It is the latest Notification No. 159/85 that is sought to be quashed in this proceeding. 2. The part of Notification No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Government Officials Union Represented by Its President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ1
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. All these appeals arise out of a common order delivered by Mohan, 3, in a batch of writ petitions in which the learned Judge held that the appellants' challenge to the levy of profession tax by the Madras City Municipal Corporation as well as by the Madurai and Coimbatore Municipal Corporations and other District Municipalities was futile, since the levy did not suffer from any infirmity.2. The batch of appeals with which we are now dealing relate only to the levy of profession tax of the Madras City Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation. The Assistant Revenue Officer of the Corporation of Madras issued a requisition under Section 115-A of the Madras City Municipal (Corporation) Act, 1919, requiring certain public authorities to recover profession tax for the second half-year of the financial year 1985-86 from the salaries/wages of all persons employed for not less than 60 days during the period 1st April to 30th September/1st October ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Alamelu Vs. Geo Pictures Represented by Its Partner Mrs. Aloyamma a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ106
K.M. Natarajan, J.1. This petition is filed by the petitioning creditor under Sections 9(d)(ii) and (iii), 9(g), 10, 11(b), 12 and 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act to adjudicate the debtors as insolvents. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition may be briefly summarised as follows:- The 1st respondent-firm, Geo Pictures, represented by its partner, the 2nd respondent, borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from the petitioning creditor by discounting three cheques for Rs. 50,000 each, dated 14th August, 1983, 18th August, 1983 and 9th September, 1983, drawn on the South Indian Bank Limited, Madras-2. The above three cheques were discounted by the firm represented by the Managing partner Mr. N.G. John. The said N.G. John got himself adjudicated as insolvent on his own petition in I.P. No. 61 of 1984. The other partner of the firm namely, Alayamma and two other minor partners are not adjudicated as insolvents. It is further alleged that the 1st respondent firm was postponi...
Tag this Judgment!Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Agric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: [1986]161ITR497(Mad)
Sathiadev, J.1. Petitioner seeks for quashing the proceedings of the first respondent dated July 3, 1979, which in turn had confirmed the other impugned orders of the second respondent dated November 24, 1977. Petitioner is an assessee under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. For the assessment year 1975-76, it was subjected to tax by a final assessment order dated November 24, 1977. Its net agricultural income was fixed at Rs. 3,79,086 and a tax liability of Rs. 2,08,497.30 was assessed. In doing so, the expenditure claimed under 'Head Office expenses' towards provision made for retirement gratuity to employees under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was allowed to be deducted in the computation of coffee income. Petitioner's estate has both tea and coffee and it apportions 20 per cent. of its income towards coffee and it is not in dispute. After the said order was passed, second respondent, by invoking section 36 of the Act, sent a notice dated March 20, 1978, stating...
Tag this Judgment!D. Rajagopal Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: [1987(54)FLR194]; (1986)IILLJ425Mad
ORDER1. Petitioner seeks for a declaration that R. 3. 10(2) of the Service Rules of respondent-Corporation, is illegal. 2. Already, dealing with the points arising in W.P. 2976 of 1985, it has been held that the Corporation is an instrumentality of the State of Tamil Nadu in respect of service condition of its employees, and they are entitled to protective benefits under Parts III and IV of the Constitution, as held in Ajay Masia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravarni : (1981)ILLJ103SC and, therefore, any term relating to their service conditions, which confers arbitrary powers, and which is capable of vicious discrimination, is illegal. Mr. Santhanam, learned counsel for Corporation would submit that the Rules having been framed by the Board of Directors of Company registered under the Companies Act, petitioner cannot seek for such a declaration. This plea is without substance, because as 'other authority' under Art. 12, it cannot enforce an illegal condition of service, which offends any of the ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Abdul Aziz Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)IMLJ472; [1987]67STC273(Mad)
Sathiadev, J.1. At the time of filing this writ petition, the petitioner was an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharmapuri. He states as follows : On 29th April, 1977, the Board of Revenue/second respondent framed a charge under rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (C.C.A.) Rules, claiming therein that when he was J.C.T.O., Salem town (North), he has failed to give a specific finding as to wilful non-disclosure of turnover while levying penalty under section 12(3) of Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959, in respect of the assessment of Hotel Vinayaka for the year 1973-74, which resulted in the appellate authority setting aside the penalty, and thereby he had caused a loss of revenue of Rs. 14,970 of the State. After his representations were filed and after following due procedure, the second respondent by order dated 5th December, 1977, awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. He preferred an appeal and the Government by G.O. Ms. No. 1661 C...
Tag this Judgment!R. Abdul Azeez Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Commissioner an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ472
ORDERT. Sathiadev, J.1. At the time of filing this writ petition, petitioner was an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharmapuri. He stated as follows: On 29.4.1977, the Board of Revenue/second respondent framed a charge under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (C.C.A.) Rules, claiming therein that when he was J.C.T.O., Salem Town (North), he has failed to give a specific finding as to wilful non-disclosure of turnover while levying oenalty under Section 12(3) of Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959. In respect of the assessment of Hotel Vinayaga for the year 1973-74, and which resulted in the Appellate Authority setting aside the penalty, and thereby he had caused a loss of revenue of Rs. 14,970 to the State. After his representations were filed and after following due procedure, second respondent by order dated 5.12.1977 awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. He preferred an appeal and Government by C.O.Ms. No. 1661, C.T. and R. Departm...
Tag this Judgment!Thanapal Vs. Assistant Collector of C.E.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC305; 1988(36)ELT421(Mad)
1. This is a petition by a citizen of Singapore praying to direct the respondent to return the passport of the petitioner to enable him to go over to Singapore and come back to India within such time this Court may fix, subject to such terms and conditions which this court may deem fit and proper. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his passport was seized by the customs authorities on 24-1-1985 along with other articles brought by him, that the passport was not entered in the mahazar of seizure, that the petitioner is compelled by the requirement to undergo military training of his country to go back immediately, that he is possessing property worth Rs. 5 lakhs in Pudukkottai in his own name, that he is assessed to Wealth Tax in India and the assessment in the Wealth Tax shows the value of the property at Rs. 4.5 lakhs and that he has number of family links in India. He contends that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, has no power to seize his passport and such seizu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »