Chennai Court March 1986 Judgments
East Asiatic Company (India) P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: [1986]161ITR135(Mad)
M.N. Ceandurkar, C.J. 1. For the assessment year 1971-72, for which the relevant period of accounting ended on December 31, 1970, the assessee showed a total loss of Rs. 63,53,460 out of which, loss to the extent of Rs. 61,84,273 was carried forward from the earlier assessment year. Out of this figure of Rs. 61,84,273, it was not possible for the Tribunal to ascertain as to what amount constituted carried forward business loss and what amount was carried forward as unabsorbed depreciation. Admittedly, the assessee company did not have any business activities in the relevant previous year inasmuch as the assessee was engaged only in the collection of debts. The assessee however, on the strength of the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Company Limited : [1973]89ITR150(All) , claimed that the assessee should be deemed to be carrying on business and was entitled to set off the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation. 2. The Income-tax Officer, in the co...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Srinivasachariar Vs. K. Ramanujam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1986Mad314
1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 52 of 1977, Sub-Court of Ramnad at Madurai is the appellant in this appeal, which is confined to item No. 5 of the B schedule properties. The appellant and the first respondent are brothers and are sons of one Kuppanna lyengar. The fifth respondent is the widow of Kuppanna lyengar, while respondents 2 to 4 are the daughters of Kuppanna 1yengar and sisters of the appellant and the first respondent. Having regard to the very narrow scope of the appeal, it would suffice to notice the facts necessary to resolve the controversy regarding item 5 of the B schedule properties. This item or property comprises of two small extents of wet lands of 35 cents and 36 cents respectively totalling to 71 cents in Malli village, Srivilliputtur, Ramnad Dist. One Kothai Animal had purchased these two items under a sale deed dated 17-4-1950. Every year on every day in the Tamil month of Margachi, she had been performing Thirupalliezhuchi service in Thiruvengadamudayan temple in ...
Tag this Judgment!Kandaswami Pandurar and ors. Vs. Natesan Elathiriar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ294
ORDERT.N. Singaravelu, J.1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein.2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their 3/4th share in the suit properties with the following averments. The suit properties originally belonged to four brothers Thangaiyan, Ramaswami, Marudhai and Natesan (First defendant). The propertieswere acquired by their father Sannasi. Marudhai had no issues and he had willed away his 1/4th share to his brother's daughter Subbalakshmi. Thangaiyan died without issues. On 12.7.1974, the first defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs, who are his sister's sons, in respect of his 5/8th share. The settlement deed was duly accepted by the done. Later, on 21.10.1974, Ramaswami and Subbalakshmi 'as one party and the first defendant and the plaintiffs as the other party entered into a partition deed and the properties covered by the settlement deed were allotted to the share of the plaintiffs and the first defe...
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Akthar and Company Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Vepery Assessment ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1986
Reported in: [1987]64STC70(Mad)
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. A question of great importance common to all these writ petitions falls for determination in these proceedings. 2. Pending the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, against the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, every one of the petitioners applied for stay of collection of the disputed tax on the security of immovable property. But the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his 'non-speaking order' directed every one of the petitioners to pay the disputed tax in instalments. It is this order that is sought to be quashed by every one of the petitioners in separate petitions. 3. It is common ground that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is vested with the power to grant stay and that such a power is discretionary. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that even the discretionary power has to be exercised judiciously and that in view of the non-speaking order, it is obvious that such discreti...
Tag this Judgment!C. Arumugam Vs. A.V. Sampath Giri Rao and N. Raghavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)1MLJ368
ORDERK. Shanmukham, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner. A decree for possession was obtained by the petitioner's landlord on 30.6.1972 in O.S. No. 108 of 1971, District Munsif's Court, Cheyyar. The respondents filed O.E.P. No. of 1981 for executing the said decree and on 13.7.1984 the Executing Court ordered delivery. The petitioner came forward with O.E. No. 42 of 1983, purporting to be under Sections 47 and 151, C.P.C. to declare the decree in O.S. No. 108 of 1971 as not executable, because, according to him, under G.O. Ms. No. 424, Revenue, dated 24.2.1977, the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act HI of 1922 was extended to the Municipal Town of Thiruvattipuram, Cheyyar Taluk, South Arcot District, with effect from 31.3.1971.2. What is the effect of the above G.O. is the point to be considered. The Government order read thus:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Madras City Tenant's Protection Act, 1921 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1922), the Governor of ...
Tag this Judgment!State Vs. S. Seshamal Pandia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas889(Mad)
Bhaskaran, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal passed by the Third Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, of the three directors of the United Pharma (India) P. Ltd. on a complaint filed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Madras, under sections 209A(2) and 209A(8) of the Companies Act. 2. The complaint has been laid by the Assistant Registrar of Companies against the three directors, the respondents herein under sections 209A(2) and 209A(8) of the Companies Act, alleging that the respondents are the directors of the above-mentioned company, that during the inspection of the company at its registered office on March 15, 1975, March 17, 1975, and March 19, 1975, certain irregularities were found by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, that subsequently a report was sent to the Government of India under section 209A(6) of the Companies Act, and that, thereafter, exhibit P-1 notice was sent to the directors of the company on August 23, 1975, pointing out the om...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Overseas Bank Vs. A. Vimalan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Mad90; [1989]65CompCas214(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The Indian Overseas Bank (Salem Main) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') the plaintiff in O.S. 315 of 1976 Sub-Court, Salem is the appellant in this appeal. One Appavoo Pillai was the owner of a fleet of buses operating in Salem and Dharmapuri districts. He died on or about 17-8-1963 leaving a registered will D/- 18-3-1957 under which he had made some arrangements for the management of his fleet of buses as well as the division of his properties. Respondents 1 to 6 in this appeal are the sons of Appavoo Pillai. Respondents 7 and 8 are the wives of respondents 1 and 2, respectively.After the death of Appavoo Pillai the first respondent, one of his sons, who was also appointed as the executor under the Will of Appavoo Pillai entered into the management of the bus business, left behind by Appavoo Pillai. For the purpose of payment of taxes on the buses, respondents 1to 6 were in need of funds and they approached the Bank for financial help to pay off the taxes due to the...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D. Parry India Ltd. and ors. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1986
Reported in: 1987(27)ELT64(Mad)
ORDER1. In all these writ petitions, petitioners have sought for issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear respondents from demanding and collecting the Central Excise Surcharge of three paise per unit as provided in Part V of Tamil Nadu Act I of 1979, as the said levy is ultra vires and void and for consequential directions to be issued. 2. Petitioner in W.P. No. 5800 of 1979 claims as follows :- It is engaged in manufacturing different products in its factories at Ennore, Ranipet and Nellikuppam and for availing of high tension current supply, it had entered into agreements with Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Tariff rates have been fixed based on S. 46 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Section 49 thereunder provides as to what are the factor that should be taken into account for fixing tariffs. Along side the said Act, Tamil Nadu Government had enacted Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1946 declaring electricity as one of the essential articles. This Act was replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1949 k...
Tag this Judgment!B. Champalal JaIn Vs. Chewarchand Ashok Kumar and Co., Rep. by Chewara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ20
ORDERShanmukham, J.1. The defendant in O.S. 201 of 1979 on the file of the first Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry is the petitioner in this revision. His application I.A.2201 of 1983 purported to have been filed under Order 9, Rule 12, C.P.C., was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner is to prefer an appeal. It is this order that is sought to be revised in this revision.2. It is seen from the records that the plaintiff has closed his evidence. Thereafter, the defendant examined himself as D.W. 1, on 18th December, 1982 and on 8th December, 1982, the chief examination was continued on 15th December, 1982 and on 21st February, 1983 he was cross-examined. His cross-examination was not over. The matter was adjourned to 25th February, 1983. Even on that day the cross-examination could not be concluded. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 26th April, 1983, for continuation of the cross-examination. On that day also...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Sree Lalithambika Enterprises, Salem Vs. S. Kailasam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1986
Reported in: (1988)ILLJ63Mad
Mohan, J.1. Against the concurrent judgments of the additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore and a learned single Judge of this Court, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred in so far as the respondent has been awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 11,020.80 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, hereinafter referred as 'the Act'. 2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act, claiming compensation for the loss of four fingers in his left hand due to an accident which took place on 17th August, 1978. The said accident took place in the course of the respondent's employment in the appellant's enterprises. The workmen would state that he was getting a salary of Rs. 370 per mensem and he was also earning some amount by playing Veena. 3. The mangement opposed the claim inter alia on two grounds-(1) The accident took place on a day which was a holiday for the factory and (2) In any event, by the loss of four fingers on the left hand the workman ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »