Chennai Court March 1988 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.
Sri Balaji Trading Co. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR428(Mad)
Sivasubramaniam, J.1. When these batch of writ petitions came up for admission, this court held that the High Court should not normally interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the appellate authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions took up the stand that the provisions contained under Section 31(5) of the Act confer discretionary powers on the appellate authority and, therefore, it should be exercised judiciously and the authority must pass speaking orders. It is stated that in most of these cases, sufficient security was furnished. But, in spite of that, the appellate authority refused to grant absolute stay without assigning any reasons, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. : 1985ECR4(SC) . Learned counsel attempted to distinguish the said case on facts. In view...
The Director of Handlooms and Textiles and ors. Vs. K. Venkatesan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ226
Sathiadev, J.1. W.A. No. 1973 of 1987. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 8833 of 1987 on 7th September, 1987, allowing the Writ Petition on the day when it came up for admission and without ordering notice to issue to any of the impleaded respondents, and therefore, without hearing the affected parties.2. W.P. No. 8833 of 1986 was filed by a 'A' Class Member of the third respondent Society (ranking of parties as in Writ Petition). He states that the Society was promoted and incorporated with 54 members on 22.5.1971 to uplift the conditions of the weavers in the area of its operation. It has a complement of 648 'A' Class Members and 244 'B' Class Members in all 992, who have subscribed various amounts as share capital to the total tune of about Rs. 6,97,500. It was registered with the second respondent and started functioning with a nominated Board of Directors. The last nomination was made for the period upto 8.10.19...
C.K.N. Gounder Alias C.K.N. Karupanna Gounder S/O Nachimuthur Gounder ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ496
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is against an order dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 8 months and 19 days in filing a petition under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner on 9.8.1985 in O.S. No. 45 of 1985 on the file of Sub Court, Karur.2. The suit filed by the respondent is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 22.8.1984 under which the consideration was fixed at Rs. 70,000 out of which a sum of Rs. 55,000 was paid as advance on the date of the agreement. Alleging that the defendant was evading performance of the agreement and offering to deposit the balance of sale price into Court, the plaintiff instituted the suit on 16.3.1985. The address of the defendant was given in the plaint as Pattanalvar Lane, Market Street, Kakkinada, Andhra Pradesh. The summons sent to Kakkinada by post returned with the endorsement that the...
R. Halasyam Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Vii, Madurai and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: [1989]73STC77(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. In these five writ petitions the proprietor of Deccan Engineers, Madurai, has raised a point that when the authorities as well as the Tribunal have held that the wet grinder comes only under the purview of item 81 and collected 6 per cent tax now all of a sudden because of the coming into existence of item 41-B in the year 1977 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, it is not open to the department to collect tax at the rate of 12 per cent. For this view the learned counsel for the petitioner had also taken me through the provision of Sl. No. 33-C of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, wherein, according to him, 'domestic electrical appliances' have got a similar connotation and meaning as contemplated under item 81. In other words, the point that is raised on behalf of the petitioner in all these writ petitions is that when the wet grinder is used for the purpose of grinding flour though electrically propelled, yet they can never c...
K. Subramaniam and anr. Vs. M. Sankaran Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ134
V. Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. 783 of 1977, District Munsif Court, Madurai town, are the appellants in this second appeal. They laid that suit praying for the delivery of vacant possession of the suit lane to the 2nd appellant without any hindrance and for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents to remove the staircase, door ways, tap, etc, put up by the respondents in the suit lane.2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants is as under: The suit lane originally belonged to the first appellant. To the north of the suit lane, the first appellant owned a house, that house was sold to the respondents under Ex. B1, dated 12.2.1972. On that day, the first appellant granted a licence by an unregistered document in favour of the respondents to use the suit lane to secure access to the toilet in the house sold to the respondents. The licence, according to the first appellant, was granted for the specific purpose of securing access to the toilet and the respondents, as licen...
R. Halasyam Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ295
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. In these five writ petitions the proprietor of Deccan Engineers, Madurai, has raised a point that when the Authorities as well as the Tribunal have held that the wet grinder comes only under the purview of Sl. No. 81 and collected 6 per cent tax now all of a sudden because of the coming into existence of Item 41-B in the year 1977 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, it is not open to the department to collect tax at the rate of 12 per cent. For this view the learned Counsel for the petitioner had also taken me through the provision of Sl. No. 33-C of First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act wherein, according to him, 'Domestic electrical appliances' have got a similar connotation and meaning as contemplated under Item 81. In other words, the point that is raised on behalf of the petitioner in all these writ petitions is that when the wet grinder is used for the purpose of grinding flour though electrically propelled, yet they can never come...
T.M. Natarajan Vs. Subbaraya Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ507
ORDERSathiadev, J.1. These two revisions are filed against the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 198 and 199 of 1987 in O.S. No. 81 of 1983 on the file of Sub-Court Tiruvannamalai. By invoking Section 151, and without even referring to C.P.C.I.A. No. 198 of 1987 was filed to re-open the hearing of the suit, in which defendant's side had started rendering evidence. I.A. No. 199 of 1987 was filed under Order 16, Rule 10(2) without even referring to C.P.C. to issue summons to one Kuppusamy Gounder, Proprietor, V.K.S. Commission Mundy for production of bill books, account books, receipt books, etc. On trial Court dismissing both these petitions, these two revision petitions are preferred.2. On the revision petitions being taken up for hearing, Mr. R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for defendants-respondents (ranking of parties as in trial Court) raised a preliminary objection that these two revision petitions are not maintainable, because they are not cases decided within the meaning of Section ...
Canara Bank Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Zone Iii, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR76(Mad); [1989]72STC136(Mad)
Swamikkannu, J.1. This petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Zone III, Madras-1, to forbear from selling the properties of the second respondent herein in pursuance of the notice of sale of movable property in Form No. 3, Reference No. 6281 of 1981-C dated 25th April, 1981. 2. It is, inter alia, contended in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and sworn to by the manager of the petitioner-bank, that the second respondent-firm had been enjoying certain facilities from the petitioner-bank. On July 11, 1974, the second respondent was granted an open case credit facility to the tune of Rs. 50,000 on hypothecation of its stock-in-trade, etc., in favour of the bank, thereby creating a charge over the said goods in favour of the petitioner-bank. The said hypothecation is still in force. The second respondent had left certain arrears of sales tax due to the Government for the assessment yea...
Canara Bank, Madras Vs. Asstt. Commissioner (C.T.), Zone-iii, Madras 1 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Mad17
ORDERSwamikkannu, J. 1. This petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) Zone III, Madras-1, to forbear from selling the properties of the second respondent herein in pursuance of the notice of sale of movable property in Form-3 Ref. No. 6281/81-C dated 25-4-1981.2. It is inter alia contended in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and sworn to by the Manager of the petitioner Bank, that the second respondent firm had been enjoying certain facilities from the petitioner Bank. On 11-7-1974 the second respondent was granted an open cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on hypothecation of its stock in trade etc. in favour of the Bank, thereby creating a charge over the said goods in favour of the petitioner Bank. The said hypothecation is still in force. The second respondent had left certain arrears of sales-tax due to the Government for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81. The ...
Vairambal Alias Vairathachi (Died) Vs. the Executive Officer, Adhikumb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)1MLJ178
ORDERS. Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The proceedings challenged in this writ petition are those under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 30 of 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The factual finding is that the original petitioner, who is no more, and whose legal representatives have come on record, is not the owner of the site. By the ultimate proceedings of the second respondent, it has been directed the first respondent will be entitled to ground rent patta under Section 13 of the Act for the site in question with a declaration that the superstructure thereon should vest with the petitioner. If I take note of the pronouncements of this Court, and I find the concerned pronouncements in fact have not been taken note of by the second respondent, the above view of the second respondent cannot be upheld. It is a well-settled principle that unless the persons owns the site in which the buildings is put up, he will not be entitled to a patta under Sectio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »