Chennai Court July 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Faquir Chand Vinoth Kumar Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: 1990(25)ECC397; 1989(25)LC483(Madras); 1989(44)ELT451(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioners imported pulses. Earlier there was a Customs Notification No. 129/76 - whereunder the pulses imported had the benefit of total exemption from the customs duty. There has come a Customs Notification No. 40/87 bearing date 4-2-1987, which rescinded the earlier Customs Notification No. 129/76 and imposed a customs duty ad valorem 255 on pulses imported. The petitioners want to claim exemption for the pulses imported by them under the cover of Customs Notification No. 129/76 on the following ground. Customs Notification No. 40/87 was printed, published and made available to the public only on 18-2-1987, and hence it became effective only on and from that date and the bills of entry with regard to the pulses imported by the petitioners having had been filed anterior to such printing, publication and circulation, Customs Notification No. 40/87 cannot be applied to the pulses imported by the petitioners and they must have the benefit of the total exemption under the ea...
Ramu Engineering Works Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Chintadripet Assess ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: [1989]73STC406(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. This petitioner wants a writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent from prosecuting a distraint order. The distraint order has been issued by the respondent for the sales tax dues of a firm M/s. Ramu Engineering Works, which name the petitioner also bears. The assessment years are 1970-71 and 1971-72. According to the petitioner, there were series of dissolutions of firms and new firms came into existence as new entities and the last one is the petitioner and the assessee-firm is no longer in existence and the petitioner cannot be characterised as a transferee of the business of the assessee-firm within the meaning of section 27 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. 2. Mr. K. J. Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on a pronouncement of this Court in Ammonia Supply Corporation v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Rattan Bazaar Division, Madras [1972] 29 STC 356, would submit that dissolution of a firm brings about its civil deat...
Thiruvaluvar Velanmai Kazhagam (P) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1987
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas304(Mad); (1987)IIMLJ363
S.A. Kader, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in O.S.No. 74 of 1978. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff is a private limited company represented by its managing director and the suit was laid for rendition of accounts against the defendant who was the former managing director and was in management of the company till may 5, 1976, when the present managing director assumed office. The defendant was assisted in the management by her brother-n-law, Thirunavukkarasu Chettiar. The plaintiff company owns extensive lands cultivated on pannai basis and on lease and the income from the lands is considerable. The company also owns topes. The defendant, during her management, has collected paddy from the lands and realised income from the tope. negotiated agreements for sale and received advances without the sanction of the board and secreted these amount. She has failed to convene annual meetings of d...
Thiruvalluvar Velanmal Kazhagam Private Ltd. Through Its Managing Dire ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)2MLJ263
S.A. Kader, J.1. The appeal is against the Judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, in O.S. No. 74 of 1978. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.2. The plaintiff is a private limited company, represented by its Managing Director and the suit was laid for rendition of accounts against the defendant, who was the former Managing Director and was in management of the company till 5.5.1976, when the present Managing Director assumed office. The defendant was assisted Jn the management by her brother-in-law Thirunavukkarasu Chettiar. The plaintiff company own extensive lands cultivated on pannai basis and on lease and the income from the lands in considerable. The company also owns topes. The defendant, during her management, has collected paddy from the lands and realised income from the tope, negotiated agreement for sale and received advance without the sanction of the Board and secreted these amounts. She has failed to convene annual meetings of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›