Chennai Court February 1987 Judgments
Venkateswara Metal Industries Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: [1989]74STC304(Mad)
Bhaskaran, J. 1. This is a tax case appeal by the erstwhile partners of M/s. Venkateswara Metal Industries, against the order of the Board of Revenue, revising the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and also the order of assessment of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Tondiarpet, withdrawing the exemption granted with respect to certain turnover for the assessment year 1969-70. 2. For the assessment year 1969-70, the appellants, manufacturers and dealers in M.S. rounds, were assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 35,91,555.70 and Rs. 5,26,237.20 respectively by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Tondiarpet, by his order dated 19th May, 1975 and he has exempted to the tune of Rs. 30,65,318.59 relating to sale of M.S. rounds rerolled out of local purchases of scrap. The taxable turnover of Rs. 5,26,237.20 related to sales of M.S. rounds amounting to Rs. 5,23,375.20 and Rs. 2,862 related to sales of machinery. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!Spencer Consumer Products and Services Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(34)ELT19(Mad)
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. As against the impugned order, an appeal is competent. What Mr. S.V. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state is that the amount involved in large and further, Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 would oblige the petitioner to deposit with the adjudicating authority the amount. Subject-matter of the impugned order, as a condition precedent for entertaining of the appeal. But I find that the proviso to the said provision certainly gives a discretion to the appellate authority in case such deposit would cause undue hardship to dispense with such deposit. The petitioner can as well plead for the exercise of this discretionary power and I am sure, the appellate authority will consider the pleas of the petitioner, on merits, in this behalf, directing the petitioner to resort to the appeal process. This writ petition is dismissed. However to enable the petition to resort to the appeal process and move the authority concerned fo...
Tag this Judgment!Padmanabhan Vs. Bama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1386
ORDERMaheswaran, J.1. This revision is directed against the order in M.P. No. 531 of 1985 in M.P. 110 of 1985 in M.C. 500 of 1978, on the file of the Second Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.2. The revision petitioner is one Padmanabhan. The respondent, Bama is his wife. Bama, the respondent, filed an application under Section 125 cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. Parties and their respective counsel made a joint endorsement fixing the maintenance at Rs. 150 per month. But the respondent filed a petition in M.P. 531 of 1985 under Section 127 cr.P.C. claiming enhanced maintenance as she finds herself unable to maintain with the sum of Rs. 150 per month. She prayed for a sum of Rs. 400 per month.3. The revision petitioner filed an application contending inter alia that the petition under Section 127 cr.P.C. by the wife is not maintainable. The contention taken by the petitioner is that the endorsement on the petition for maintenance under Section 125 cr.P.C. was made by both the husban...
Tag this Judgment!S.M.D. FizuddIn Vs. Accommodation Controller, Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Mad364; (1987)IIMLJ329
Chandurkar, C.J. 1. The facts in this case are not in dispute. Originally, the allotment of the premises in question was made under S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act) in favour of one Abdul Samad. Admittedly, the appellant's father Md. Basheerduddin, who was in Government employment came to occupy these premises as a result of the allotment being transferred to his name on 7-7-1979 (sic). Mr. Basheeruddin died on 1-3-1972. The appc1lant is the son of Md. Basheeruddin. Admittedly, he was not in Government employment on the date on which his father died Even otherwise, automatically he would not be entitled to occupy the premises unless there is an order of allotment in his favour. It is stated before us that on a humanitarian ground, being the son of a Government servant, who died in harness, the appellant was given Government employment on 12-4-1973. The appellant has, however, been in continuous occupat...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vasantha and ors. Vs. Venugopal Achari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1987
Reported in: II(1987)ACC317; (1987)2MLJ35; 1988ACJ196
Venkataswami, J.1. The petitioners in O.P. No. 4 of 1978 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Cuddalore, are the appellants in this appeal.2. One Krishnamoorthi working as B Grade tinker in Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industries Engineering Workshop at Villupuram, was killed by lorry bearing registration No. TNF 6221, belonging to the second respondent driven by the first respondent on 18th May, 1977. The first appellant is the widow of the deceased Krishnamoorthi and appellants 2 to 4 are the minor daughters of the deceased. In the petition, the appellants claimed a total compensation of -Rs.50,000. However, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000, and aggrieved by that order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, this appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation.3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that against the finding of the Tribunal below, to the effect that the insurance company, the 3rd respond...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›