Chennai Court December 1989 Judgments
Ennore Steel Enterprises Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-31-1989
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC123; 1990(47)ELT363(Mad)
ORDER1. Out of these writ petitions one manufacturer has filed W.P. Nos. 13566 and 13567 of 1986 and 11938 of 1988 while another manufacturer has filed Writ Petition Nos. 13564 and 13565 of 1986 and 11939 of 1988. The prayer in the writ petition Nos. 13566 and 13564 of 1986 are similar and they are for certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent demanding certain amounts from the petitioners under Rule 56(i) of the Central Excise Rules. The prayer in the Writ Petition Nos. 13565 and 13567 of 1986 is for a declaration declaration declaring condition (ii) in para 2 of the order F.No. B.22-5-1986-TRU, dated 7-4-1986 as invalid while the prayer in the writ petition Nos. 11938 and 11939 of 1988 is for a declaration declaring Rule 56(i) of the Central Excise Rules as ultra vires. 2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of these cases are as follows : The petitioners are manufacturers of steel ignots. One of the inputs is waste and scrap which the petitioners ...
Tag this Judgment!Gift-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Valli Alagappan.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-1989
Reported in: [1990]33ITD222(Mad)
ORDERPer Shri. T. V. Rajagopala Rao, Judicial Member - The question involved in this appeal preferred by the Revenue is whether the revocable gift made by the assessee Smt. Valli Alagappan, Madras in favour of M/s. M & L Investments Pvt. Ltd. is liable to gift-tax. Admittedly the gift is made in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1982-83. The gift transaction is contained in the letter dated 12-4-1982 addressed by the assessee to M/s. M & L Investments Pvt. Ltd. According to the letter the list of jewelleries appended to the said letter which consisted of 27 items of gold, diamonds, rubies, etc., stated to be of the value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs were transferred in favour of M/s. M & L Investments Pvt. Ltd. on the following conditions; (i) The transferor should have the right to revoke the transfer after the expiry of seventy-four months from the date of transfer. (ii) If however the transfer is not revoked within three months after the expiry of the said period of seventy-fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sivashakthi and Co. Vs. Fourth Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-1989
Reported in: [1990]33ITD155(Mad)
ORDERPer T. N. C. Rangarajan, Judicial Member - These appeals are directed against the levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a registered firm. In making the assessment for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the Income-tax Officer found that the assessee had not deducted tax at source while paying interest on capital borrowed. He, therefore levied interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act. This was confirmed in appeal.3. In the further appeal before us it is not in dispute that the assessee was liable to deduct interest and it had failed to do so and, therefore, prima facie interest is chargeable under section 201(1A) of the Act. However, the assessee has taken a technical plea that the wording of this section does not extend to a person who has failed to deduct the tax. The argument is as follows : Sub-section (1A) states that if any such person, does not deduct or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by the...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Arts Vs. Third Income-tax Officer.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-27-1989
Reported in: [1990]33ITD284(Mad); (1990)36TTJ(Mad)321
ORDERPer Shri George Cheriyan, Senior Vice President. This appeal by the assessee relates to the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee is a registered firm of which the partners were K. Balajee having a 60% share and B. Suresh having a 40% share. The previous year of the assessee-firm ended on 30-6-1981.2. The business of the assessee, as stated in the assessment order was 'production of feature film and hiring of outdoor equipment'. The assessee had claimed investment allowance of Rs. 67,662 in respect of plant and machinery with the dates of purchase are as under :-Rs.27-11-1980 Video Camera 24,000-00 Filter & Spotlight 2,893-75 Rainbow Filter 868-1526-12-1980 Duty on Arsi Camera 1,09,591-94 1,37,353-84 08-11-1980 Lighting Equipments Mini Brush, Dimmer Starter and Khilton lights 43,212-35 18-02-1981 60 KVA generating Set comprising Kirloskar alternator & Leyland Engine 90,080-00 With reference to the aforesaid data, we have to clarify in respect of the item which appears as duty on ...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Swadesamitran Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: [1992]73CompCas322(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The successful plaintiff in C.S. No. 472 of 1984 has preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned judge determining the rate of interest payable by the first defendant, the respondent herein, at 13% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment. 2. The plaintiff instituted the suit, C.S. No. 472 of 1984, praying for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,94,294.60 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of plaint till the date of payment. On September 1, 1972, the appellant advanced to the respondent herein a loan of Rs. 6,00,000 carrying interest at 5% over the bank rate with a minimum of 11% per annum to be calculated with quarterly rests and as security for the due repayment of the amount so advanced, the respondent deposited its title deeds relating to 'A' schedule properties in the plaint, in addition to offering the 'B' schedule assets also as such security. 3. Several defences were rais...
Tag this Judgment!M.H. Sheik Dastagiri Vs. K.K. 98 Mettur Dam Fisherman Co-operative Mar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ97
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. Tr.C.M.P. No. 16416 of 1989 is for transferring I.A.No. 519 of 1989 is un-numbered STC of 1989 on the file of the Co-operative Tribunal, Salem to the Co-operative Tribunal at Madras.2. First of all, without seeking transfer of main proceeding, transfer of an interlocutory application therein alone cannot be sought for. Vide Kondayya v. Official Receiver, Nellore (1951)1 M.L.J. 97. In the said decision it has been observed that it is open to question whether an interim application alone can be transferred without transferring the main proceeding.3. That apart, the said interlocutory application is only for excusing the delay of 236 days in filing the above said appeal, viz., the un-numbered STC of 1989. The ground alleged for transfer is that the petitioner is suffering from blood pressure and he is permanently staying at Madras due to his sickness and that he could not go to Salem for attending to the above said interlocutory application at Salem. But, for the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Syndicate Bank Vs. Swadesamitran Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ19
Ratnam, J.1. The successful plaintiff in C.S. No. 472 of 1984 has preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the learned Judge determining the rate of interest payable by the first defendant, the respondent herein, at 13% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of payment.2. The plaintiff instituted the suit C.S. No. 472 of 1984 praying for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,94,294.60 with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of plaint till the date of payment. On 1.9.1972, the appellant advanced to the respondent herein a loan of Rs. 6,00,000 carrying interest at 5% over the bank rate with a minimum of 11% p.a. to be calculated with quarterly rests and as security for the due repayment of the amount so advanced, the respondent deposited its title deeds relating to 'A' schedule properties in the plaint, in addition to offering the 'B' Schedule assets also as such security.3. Several defences were raised by the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ramakrishnan Vs. K. Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ64
Bellie, J.1. The defendant against whom a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,083.37 has been passed by the trial court and whose appeal has been dismissed, is the appellant in this second appeal.2. The plaintiff claimed the said sum of Rs. 11,083.37 from the defendant as due in respect of the carpentry work done by him as regards the tenements the defendant was constructing on a contract with Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board. The defendant denied that such amount was due to the plaintiff and on the other hand he contended that it is the plaintiff who is due to him a sum of Rs. 1,000 on account of over-payment by him to the plaintiff.3. The suit stood posted to 17.9.1985 for trial. On that day the plaintiff was examined as P.W.I and the evidence on his side was closed. The suit was adjourned to 20.9.1985 for the evidence on the side of the defendant. At the request of the defendant's counsel the suit was adjourned to 25.9.1985. On that date, both defendant and his counsel were absent...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Mohamed Yosuff Vs. A.K. Anwar Basha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ111
ORDERAbdul Hadi, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition by the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is against the order of the appellate authority confirming the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller.2. Three grounds were raised for eviction, namely, (1) Wilful default in the payment of rent; (2) Owner's occupation and (3) demolition and reconstruction. On the latter two grounds both the courts below concurred. On the former ground of wilful default, though the Rent Controller held that there was default in the payment of rent for the period in question, namely 15.1978 to 315.1980 he did not hold it as wilful. But the appellate authority held it is wilful also.3. So far as demolition and reconstruction, the following passage in Ex.B.1 letter dt. 25.4.1980 sent by the counsel for the tenant is significant. 'As the house (demised building) was also damaged by the fire accident, which took place about seven years ago in that area, the thatches have to be r...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)1MLJ95
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal today.2. The writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 9853 of 1983 decided on 31.10.1988.3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ appeal may be noticed in short. The writ petitioner, the respondent herein, entered the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service as a Sub-Inspector of Police in 1976. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the basis of certain charges drawn against him. The enquiry was concluded and seven out of the eight charges were held proved. The writ petitioner was issued with a second show cause notice directing him to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal he not inflicted on him. There was some delay in submitting the reply to the show cause notice; but eventually the writ petitioner was granted time to submit his reply to the second show cause notice upto...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »