Chennai Court November 1990 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.
P. Mariappan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)427MLJ1
ORDER1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 11270 of 1987. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein; and the respondents in the writ petition are the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. There were two applicants for the grant of no-objection certificate for locating permanent theatres in Sivagurunathapuram village, Tenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The petitioner was one of the two applicants for the grant of no-objection certificate for locating a permanent theatre. The second-respondent was another applicant for the grant of a no-objection certificate for locating a permanent theatre. The petitioner objected to the grant of no-objection certificate for locating a permanent theatre to the second-respondent. The Collector deemed fit to grant the licence in favour of the petitioner; and on 29.9.1986 the application of the se...
M.R. Arumugham Vs. Velammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)511MLJ1
Thanikkachalam, J.1. C.R.P. No. 381 of 1986 arises out of the order passed in C.M.A. No. 51 of 1985, which in turn arose out of the order passed in I.P. No. 26 of 1982. C.R.P. No. 382 of 1986 arises out of the order passed in C.M.A. No. 19 of 1985, which in turn arose out of the order passed in I.P. No. 25 of 1982. The petitioner herein is the respondent in I.P. No. 25 of 1982. C.R.P. No. 23.06 of 1986 arises out of the order passed in C.M.A. No. 19 of 1985 which in turn arose out of the order passed in I.P. No. 25 of 1988. Respondents 3 to 5 in I.P. No. 25 of 1982, are the petitioners herein. C.R.P. No. 2307 of 1986 arises out of the order passed in C.M.A. No. 51 of 1985, which in turn arose out of the order passed in I.P. No. 26 of 1982. Respondents 3 to 5 in I.P. No. 26 of 1982 are the petitioners herein.2. I.P. No. 25 of 1982 was filed by one Saraswathi Ammal and I.P. No. 26 of 1982 was filed by one Velammal. The respondents in both the petitions are common.3. In I.P. No. 25 of 198...
K. Govindan Nair Vs. Hansraj Bothra
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ40
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 1312 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller (8th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.2. The petitioner filed the above R.C.O.P. for eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act. The case of the, petitioner is as follows:The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing door No. 30, Pethu Naicken Street, Madras and the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of a portion in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 350. The petitioner is living in the upstairs of the petition premises with his family consisting of his wife, three sons and two daughters. The two sons of the petitioner af...
R. Ramachandran Vs. R. Govindaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)2MLJ503
Srinivasan, J.1. The first defendant who has failed in the Courts below is challenging the decree granted in favour of the respondent herein in this appeal. The short facts are, the suit property belonged to one Nachiar Ammal who was the aunt of the appellant as well as the respondent. They are related to her as her brother's sons. She executed a Will on 23.11.1951 marked as Ex. B.1 bequeathing her property to the plaintiff. In the Will, it is stated expressly that even during her husband's lifetime, the plaintiff was brought up from his childhood as 'Abhimanputra' (foster son). There is no dispute about the genuineness of the said Will. That Will was revoked by Nachiar Ammal by a deed dated 27.3.1962. In the revocation deed, no reason is given for cancelling the Will. It merely records that the Will is cancelled.2. Nachiar Ammal executed another Will on 21.4.1973 which was registered on 24.4.1973. In the Will, the following recital is the relevant one for the purpose of this case:As p...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Balakrishna Textiles and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)89CTR(Mad)224; [1992]193ITR361(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. In these tax case reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions of law have been referred to this court for its opinion in relation to the assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65 : '(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 27(1)(c) (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that there was been no concealment in respect of the additions agreed to by the assessees is based on materials and evidence and is a reasonable view to take ?' 2. Since all the assessees in these tax case references belonged to the same group and the assessments and the penalty proceedings in respect of all the assessees in the group were common, we propose to deal with the questions referred to above also by a common order. We many now proceed to set out the facts relevant for a considerati...
Vopak Pharmaceuticals Vs. Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT377(Mad)
1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Patent and Proprietary Medicines and Drugs licence obtained in Drugs Act. The petitioner claims to be a small manufacturer and had been claiming exemption from payment of excise duty or concessional payment of excise duty under various notifications issued by the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is refusing to release the goods manufactured from a factory wherein a number of loan licensees manufactured goods by stating that the value of the clearances will be clubbed together for the purpose of the Notification No. 175/86. The petitioner submits that the direction to club all the clearances from a factory for the purpose of applying the exemption is contrary to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has, therefore, come forward with this writ petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the second respondent from clubbing the value of clearances of the petitioner with that...
Kumaran Paper Products Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC420(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. This tax appeal case is by the assessee against the order dated May 5, 1980, of the Board of Revenue in its B.P. Rt. No. 1574/80. The said order revised the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the assessment made by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1976-77 levying single point tax at the rate of 8 per cent for a turnover of Rs. 56,339.48 relating to the sale of bituminised or wax coated waterproof paper, as per section 3(2) read with item 117 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The assessee parched paper from the Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited, paying sales tax as per the same entry 117 and converted the said paper into waterproof paper by coating bitumen or was between two sheets of paper and sold it. The assessee's contention is that the sale of the abovesaid bituminised or wax coated paper was only a second sale of paper and could not be taxed once ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.M.T. Drill (Private) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: [1991]82STC59(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J.1. This tax revision case is against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal deleting a turnover of Rs. 6,29,700 from assessment for the assessment year 1977-78 on the ground that it is the turnover coming under rule 6(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The said rule provides that in determining the taxable turnover, amounts realised by a dealer by sale of his business as a whole shall be deducted from the total turnover of the dealer. But, it is clear that the Tribunal is wrong in treating the transaction as a sale of assessee's 'business as a whole'. As per the very finding of the Tribunal, the transaction was only a transfer of certain specific assets of the assessee-company, viz., plant and machinery and car of the above referred to value of Rs. 6,29,700 and furniture and fittings to the tune of Rs. 1,26,010 and land and buildings to the tune of Rs. 13,54,500. So, it cannot be considered as a transfer of 'busin...
Babu Litho Press Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: [2001]124STC663(Mad)
ORDERVenkataswami, J. 1. In this tax case the turnovers in question are Rs. 1,71,356.30 representing sales of printed materials such as cinema tickets, wall posters, etc., and another turnover amounting Rs. 1,413.30 subjected to tax under Section 7-A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 representing purchase of wax, cotton waste, etc., used for cleaning printing machinery. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Anandam Viswanathan : [1989]1SCR301 and argued that levy of tax on the sales of cinema tickets, wall posters, etc., cannot be sustained as it amounts to works contract and not sales. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has held as follows : (at page 14 of STC)'The primary difference between a contract for work or service and a contract for sale is that in the former there is in the person performing or rendering service no property in the thing produced as a whole, notwithstanding that a part or even ...
The Commissioner, Coimbatore Municipal Electrical Undertaking Vs. A.V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1990
Reported in: (1991)405MLJ1
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. All these writ petitions raise an identical question as to whether the first respondent in each of the cases is entitled to gratuity on the basis that they had worked upto the age of 58 years and at the scales of pay as revised in G.O.Ms. No. 859, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 26.5.1980. I will set out the facts in W.P. No. 168 of 1983. The first respondent was employed as a Meter Reader in the Electricity Department of the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation. Under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act which alone was applicable at the relevant date, the age of superannuation was 55 years. The petitioner attained, the age of superannuation viz., 55 years orrl4.10.1978. But according to the first respondent, he was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 58 years. Therefore he filed a writ petition W.P. No. 4095 of 1978 and obtained an interim order of stay. In the meanwhile with effect from 1.4.1979, the age of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »