Chennai Court April 1989 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.
Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Limited and anr. Vs. the Revenue Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ38
S. Mohan, O.C.J1. The Writ appeals are directed against the judgment of Sathiadev, J., in W.P.Nos.3371 of 1978 and 3276 of 1979.2. Since the points taken are identical in both the appeals, we shall deal with the facts in WA. No. 171 of 1982 which arises out of the order in W.P. No. 3371 of 1978.3. The appellant company was incorporated in the year, 1964 under the Companies Act with its registered office in Madras. Under Section 110 of the City Municipal Corporation Act (Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1919) if the council by resolution determines that a tax on companies is to be levied, every company which transacts business within the City shall pay a half yearly tax assessed in accordance with the rules in Schedule IV of the Act. As per the said section, the Municipal Corporation has been levying a Company tax of Rs. 25 on the appellant company. A demand notice was served on the appellant demanding a sum of Rs. 1,000 as half yearly tax for the period April to September, 1978. Being aggrieved wi...
M.L. Krishnamurthy and Etc. Vs. the District Revenue Officer, Vellore ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad87
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The matters arise under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act 21 of 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The question that arises for consideration and answer by us is as to whether an existing rice mill owner could be stated to be 'an aggrieved person' in respect of a grant of a permit or a licence under the Act to another, so as to agitate the matter before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Lakshminarayanan v. Maruthappa Nainar, : AIR1970Mad136 , a Full Bench of this Court took a generous view and upheld the locus standi of a licensee of an existing rice mill to apply for Writ of Certiorari to quash the grant of a permit for establishment of a new rice mill in the locality. The question was looked at and answered differently by the Supreme Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v.N. Teekappa Gowda and Brothers, : [1970]3SCR846 a case which arose under the Act. This view of the Supreme Court was reiterated by it in Jasbhai ...
M.L. Krishnamurthy and ors. Vs. the District Revenue Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ284
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The matters arise under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act 21 of 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The question that arises for consideration and answer by us is as to whether an existing rice mill owner could be stated to be 'an aggrieved person' in respect of a grant of a permit or a licence under the Act to another, so as to agitate the matter before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Lakshminarayanan v. Manithappa Nainar : (1969)2MLJ79 , a Full Bench of this Court took a generous view and upheld the locus standi of a licensee of an existing rice mill to apply for Writ or certiorari to quash the grant of a permit for establishment of a new rice mill in the locality. The question was looked at and answered differently by the Supreme Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills v. V.N. Teekappa Gowda and Brothers : [1970]3SCR846 a case which arose under the Act. This view of the Supreme Court was reiterated by in Jasbhai Motibhai...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Stamp Act) and Inspector General ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Mad8
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. This is a reference under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 2 of 1899, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The question referred to for our consideration and answer runs as follows -'Whether the document No. P.531/77 of Registrar Office, South Madras is a mortgage deed or a trust deed?'The document, as per the copy disclosed in the typed set, is separately annexed to this order as Annexure-A. As we could see from the contents of the document, the executants are stated to be Murugesan and Coimbatore Alcohol and Chemicals (P.) Ltd. The document is in favour of Ramlinga Gounder. It refers to an agreement dt. 25-10-1977 amongst Muthukumaraswami, Lakshmana-sami, Rathanasami, Coimbatore Alcohol and Chemicals (P.) Ltd. and others. There is a reference to the properties, set out in the Third Schedule to the said agreement, and it is further said that until the debts of Rs. 5,28,000 referred to in paragraph 5 of the said agreement are discharged by the sale of these prop...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Stamp Act) and Director Gener ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1989
Reported in: (1989)2MLJ5
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, 2 of 1989, hereinafter, referred to as the Act. The question referred to for our consideration and answer runs as follows:Whether the document No. P. 531 of 1977 of Registrar Office South Madras is mortgage deed or a trust deed?' The document, as per the copy disclosed in the typed set, is separately annexed to this order as Annexure-A, As we could see from the contents of the document, the executants are stated to be Murugesan and Coimbatore Alcohol and Chemicals (P) Ltd. The document is in favour of Ramalinga Gounder. It refers to an agreement dated 25.10.1977 amongst Muthukumaraswami, Lakshmanasami, Rathanasami, Coimbatore Alcohol and Chemicals (P) Ltd, and others. There is-a reference to the properties, set-out in the third Schedule to the said agreement, and it is further said that until the debts of Rs. 5,28,000 referred to in paragraph 5 of the said agreement are discharged by the sale prope...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›