Chennai Court April 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.
R. Rajalakshmi and ors. Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ242
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This revision petition is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur made in an appeal under Section 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act as applicable to Tamil Nadu. The main complaint of the petitioners is that neither the Revenue Divisional Officer nor the Tahsildar who submitted a report as to the valuation of the land, had followed the guidelines contained in the Rules framed by the Government which Rules are called Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of under-valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968. The relevant rule is found in Rule 5. Rule 5 to the extent to which it is relevant reads thus:Principles for determination of market value:The Collector shall, as far as possible, have also regard to the following points in arriving at the provisional market value:(a) In the case of lands:(i) classification of the land as dry, manavari, wet and the like;(ii) classification under various tarams in the settlement register and accounts;(iii) the rate of revenue asses...
T.K. Abdul Jabbar (Died) Vs. Collector of C.Ex. and Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1988
Reported in: 1989(44)ELT610(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent in his proceedings in C. No. V/15/14/78 CX. 3/Order No. 6/79 dated 10-5-1979 imposing duty at the appropriate rate on 450.250 kgs. of Smoking Mixture under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Rules 9(2), 52-A, 173-2 and 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the alleged clandestine removal of tobacco from L.2 premises situate at No. 50, Palayam Bazaar Road, Tiruchirapalli. 2. It is stated inter alia in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner Abdul Jabbar was holding L.2 Licence, No. 93/72 for about seven year prior to the filing of the writ petition and was specially authorised to manufacture smoking mixture for pipes. He was receiving tobacco for such manufacture after payment of duty at the appropriate rates. He was carrying on busine...
National Sugar Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Red Hills Assess ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC147(Mad)
Swamikkannu, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the respondent relating to the notice of demand in R.C. No. 2998/81-B2 dated 21st November, 1983 and quash the same. It is, inter alia, stated in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition sworn to by the manager of the petitioner, National Sugar Industries, that the penalty demand made in the impugned notice relates to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, paid by the petitioner to the respondent, that the petitioner is a small-scale industry dealing in fabrication of metals and other engineering items, that the petitioner has been assessed by the respondent to pay the sales tax under the Central Act for the assessment year 1977-78, that the petitioner has paid the sales tax to the tune of Rs. 10,352 levied by the respondent in full, that the said payment was made belatedly that according to the respondent, there is a delay of 50 months in the payment of sales tax due under...
Tirupattur Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: [1988]71STC120(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. In both these writ petitions, the Tirupattur Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited represented by its Special Officer, K. Shahul Hameed, is the petitioner and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupattur, North Arcot and the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, Madras-9 are the respondents. Both these writ petitions have been filed for calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in his TNGST 230737/82-83 (penalty register No. 38/85-86) dated 1st June, 1985 and TNGST 230737/82-83 (penalty register No. 35/85-86) dated 1st June, 1985 and quashing the impugned orders of the first respondent. 2. It is, inter alia, stated in the affidavits sworn to by the Special Officer of the petitioner-sugar mills that the petitioner-sugar mills are the assessees on the file of the first respondent. The essential raw material for the sugar mills is sugarcane which is taxable ...
Baba Industries Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC279; 1989(22)LC460(Madras); 1988(37)ELT185(Mad)
Swamikkannu, J.1. These Writ Petitions coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 14-7-1981 and made herein, and the records relating to the prayer aforesaid comprised in the return of the Respondents in all the petitions herein, to the Writs made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K.C. Rajappa Advocate for the petitioner, in all the petitions and of Mr. P. Narasimhan, Standing Counsel for Central Government on behalf of the respondents in all the petitions herein the Court made the following order :-'Where public bodies, under colour of public laws, recover people's moneys, latter discovered to be erroneous levies the dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation. There is no law of limitation, especially for public bodies, on the virtue of returning what was wrongly recovered to whom it belongs. Nor is it palatable to our jurisprudence to turn down the...
Sneva Diamond Tools (P.) Ltd. Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: [1989]72STC329(Mad)
ORDERSwamikkannu, J.1. This is a petition for directing the first respondent to dispose of the petition dated 27th April, 1981 of the petitioners in accordance with law. 2. Mr. C. Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners, in his interesting and eruditing argument submits that the provision of section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is wider in scope than the appellate provision available in the enactment. He submits that the ratio decidendi in State of Madras v. S. G. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons : [1972]1SCR751 is a declared law. As per the provisions of article 141 of the Constitution, a declared law should be followed by all the Courts in our mother-land, including the Tribunals, quasi-judicial organisations and Governments. 3. In the instant case before us what is sought for the petitioners is to quash the order of the first respondent dated 3rd August, 1981 in L. Dis. 1462/81 and also to direct the first respondent to dispose of the petition dated 27th April, 1981 o...
Pattammal and anr. Vs. Palaniswamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ480
Ratnam, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 281 of 1978, District Munsif's Court, Mayuram are the appellants in this second appeal. That suit was paid by the appellants for recovery of possession of a portion measuring 1708 sq. ft. in door No. 10, Velalarkoil East Street, Mayuram Town and damages for use and occupation from December, 1977 till the date of delivery of possession together with the value of the trees cut and bricks removed by the respondent in a sum of Rs. 685.2. The circumstances, under which the suit was instituted are as follows:One Narayana Chettiar had two sons, Kanakasubai and Sambasiva. Kanakasubai's wife was one Anjalai, and they had a son Rajagopala Chettiar, who died on 16.3.1944, leaving behind him his two widows, Pattammal and Rajammal, the appellants herein. Muthiah was the son of Sambasiva and his son was one Kalyanasundaram Chettiar. The respondent is the son of Kalyanasundaram Chettiar. The suit property belonged to Rajagopala Chettiar, the husband of the appe...
Shah Segalal Charanraj and Co., by Partner, Sumermal Vs. Southern Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)2MLJ277
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant against whom an order of injunction has been passed by the Second Additional District Judge of Salem restraining him from producing and passing off spurious goods of liquid blue under the trade name 'Regal' or any other name similar to that of the plaintiffs trade name 'Regaul' till the disposal of the suit.2. The short facts are; The respondent herein commenced manufacturing ultra marine blue in powder form in 1959. He coined a trade name for his product as 'Regular popularly pronounced as 'Regal' His product became popular and enjoyed a special market and is in high demand from customers and public. He has been widely advertising his products in various dailies from time to time. He secured a registration of his label with the trade name of 'REGAUI ( in Tamil) under the Copyright Act with copyright numbers A.38239/82 and 382340/82. In 1983, the plaintiff developed a liquid ultra blue, after research and series of tests utilising t...
A.V. Lakshminarayanan Vs. the Special Officer, Joint Registrar of Co-o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ330
ORDERSivasubramanian, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to accept the highest tender of the petitioner and to give the right to purchase the bagasse from the 2nd respondent Sugar Mill for the Sugarcane for the year 1987-88.2. The material averments found in the petitioner's affidavit are as follows:The first respondent published an advertisement in Daily Thanthi, Tamil newspaper dated 24.12.1987, calling for sealed tenders on or before 4.1.1988 from intending purchasers of bagasse from the sugar-mills in the State of Tamil Nadu. In accordance with' the said publication, the petitioner submitted his sealed tender quoting his price in accordance with the procedures and rules for the purchase of bagasse. The total quantity of bagasse anticipated to be available for sale in the 2nd respondent Sugar Mills was 5,000 tonnes. The following persons submitted the tenders for the purchase of baled and loose b...
Rasheetha Begum Vs. the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirapalli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: AIR1990Mad21
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records connected with Memo No.9337/D7/81 dt. 14-3-1981 issued by the respondent herein calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,686/- in respect of her spare bus MDT 6440 for the quarter ending 31-3-1976 and to quash the same.2. The affidavit contained the following averments. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator playing a town bus in Trichy Town.She also owned a spare bus bearing Registration No.MDT 6440.During the year 1976 she paid the full tax in respect of the route bus and also tax at the confessional rate of 75% as applicable to her route bus in respect for her spare bus. During 17-1-1976 to 31-3-1976 the bus of another operator bearing Registration No.MDY 6873 was off the road and the petitioner was granted temporary permit in respect of her spare bus to ply as substitute service.The respondent herein accepted the tax in respect of the petitioner's spare bus amounting to Rs.8,438/- for the quarter ending ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »