Chennai Court December 1990 Judgments
Chelpark Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)94CTR(Mad)71; [1991]191ITR249(Mad)
Ratnam, J.1. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of ink under the trade name 'Quink'. Mr. Advani was the managing director of the company for about 18 years between 1953 and 1971 and left the company on October 31, 1971. Contrary to the normal expectations that Mr. Advani would enjoy his well-earned leisure, he appears to have entertained the idea of utilising his experience with the assessee company in the manufacture and sale of ink. A partnership was formed consisting of the wife and two daughters of Mr. Advani for the purpose of manufacture and sale of writing ink. Preparations had also been made by the partnership with the various authorities of the Government for acquiring an industrial site, for opening and operating bank accounts and printed materials containing advertisements, publicity material, letter-heads, labels and cartons were also got ready. An advertisement had also been issued by the partnership calling for applications for filling up the po...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank's Staff Union (Madras Circle) Vs. the State Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)ILLJ163Mad; (1992)IMLJ131
Nainar Sundaram. J.1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14664 of 1989. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. Convenience suggests that wherever it is necessary we adopt the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the writ petition, while discussing the relevant aspects in this judgment of ours. The petitioner filed the writ petition putting forth the following prayer : 'For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the Circular of the third-respondent bearing. No. Per. 59, dated 12th October 1989 including the said circular and quash the same by issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ of like nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents not to make deduc...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Raja Agencies
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: 1993(42)ECC166
A.S. Anand, C J.1. Writ Petitions Nos. 1767 and 1768 of 1982 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common Judgment dated 23.9.1988. While W.P. No. 1767 of 1982 was allowed. W.P. No. 1768 of 1982 was dismissed as not pressed. These two Writ Appeals have been filed against the common judgment and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The learned Single Judge found that no acceptable evidence had been produced by the appellants herein from which it could be found that the bill of lading had been ante-dated. It was found by the learned single Judge that the finding that the bill of lading was ante-dated could not be returned on mere surmises and conjectures. We agree with him. On record, there is no acceptable evidence from which any presumption may be drawn about the ante-dating of the bill of lading. There is a presumption in favour of the entry in the bill of lading and even though that presumption is rebuttable, it has to be rebutted by acceptable evidence, which, i...
Tag this Judgment!Varadarajan and ors. Vs. Maduraimuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ241
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. There is no merit in this revision petition. The application is wholly unsustainable. The petitioners have filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C, to set aside the sale held in execution of the mortgage decree. Pending the said application, the petitioners filed E.A. No. 9 of 1989 to implead certain person as parties alleging that they had purchased some properties in court auction in execution of another decree, which was money decree and that they were bound to discharge the mortgage. When the application is one for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C., it is for the petitioners to make a case by proving that the sale was vitiated by illegality or irregularity. The parties who are said to have purchased some of the portions of the properties in execution of another decree are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under Order 21, Rule 90, C.P.C. Hence the Court below has right in dismissing the application. The civ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank's Staff Union Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1990
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ131
Nainar Sundaram, J.This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 14664 of 1989. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents herein. Convenience suggests that wherever it is necessary we adopt the nomenclature assigned to the parties in the writ petition, while discussing the relevant aspects in this judgment of ours. The petitioner filed the writ petition putting forth the following prayer:For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Honourable Court may be pleaded to call for the records relating to the Circular of the third-respondent bearing No. PER. 59, dated 1210.1989 including the said Circular and quash the same by issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or like nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to make deduction of one day's ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V. Ramakrishna Sons (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Mad)178; [1991]192ITR282(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. In these tax case references under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the following question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has sent back for de novo consideration by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the question of the genuineness of the hundi loans, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the entire penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 ?' 2. The assessee is a company deriving its income mainly from managing agency and dividends. For the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67, the assessee filed returns of income disclosing Rs. 4,32,517, Rs. 5,79,918 and Rs. 9,13,836, respectively. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee had claimed loss of Rs. 70,350 and Rs. 1,00,006 respectively for t...
Tag this Judgment!M. Meenakshisundaram and ors. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)573MLJ1
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in W.P. No. 1357 of 1989, which was dismissed on 5.10.1989. With a view to appreciate the controversy regarding the seniority of the District Munsifs-cum-Judicial Magistrates, it would be relevant to have a short perspective of the historical background.2. The posts of Judicial First Class Magistrates and Judicial Second Class Magistrates formed part of the Tamil Nadu State Magisterial Service and the posts of District Munsifs were comprised in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. After the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the posts of Sub Magistrates and Additional First Class Magistrates were re-designated as Judicial Second Class Magistrates and Judicial First Class Magistrates. On 31.1.1976, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued directions to the effect that the posts of Judicial Second Class Magistrates be upgraded as Judicial First Class Magistrates and that th...
Tag this Judgment!Valliammal Vs. Rakkia Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1990
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ478
Srinivasan, J.1. The only question before me is whether the Will dated 24.10.1973, on which the plaintiff/appellant places reliance, is properly proved. While the trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the Will, the appellate Court has reversed the same. The appellate Court has held that the plaintiff not having examined any of the attestors to the Will, the requirement of Section 68 of the Evidence Act has not been satisfied. Consequently, the appellate Court held that the Will is not proved and dismissed the suit.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Sub-Registrar, who registered the Will has been examined as P.W. 4 in the case and he should be treated as an attestor for the purpose of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. I cannot agree with this contention. The Sub-Registrar has not done anything excepting to sign the registration endorsement in the document, which he is bound to make under the provisions of the Registrat...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nemichand JaIn Vs. P. Ethirajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1990
Reported in: (1992)2MLJ422
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The civil revision petition is directed against the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority granting the prayer of the respondent herein for eviction of the petitioner, under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petitioner contends that the findings of the courts below are wholly unsustainable for several reasons. The first submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is no specific averment in the petition filed by the respondent that the respondent is not in occupation of any non-residential building for the purpose of carrying on his son's business. In the absence of such an averment in the pleading, it is contended by learned Counsel that the bona fide requirement of the respondent ought not to have been accepted. I do not agree. Though there is no specific averment, it is clear from the petition that the respondent is seeking eviction of the petitioner herein ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Cegat, Regional Bench, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1990
Reported in: 1991(53)ELT539(Mad)
ORDERVenkataswami, J.1. This petition under Section 82(B)(iii) of the Gold Control Act is for a direction to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions of law revised before it. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue raised five questions of law for reference. However, before us, the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel has confined with reference to the following two questions of law alone, viz. '1. Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the question of making entry in the accounts of ornaments kept in the pawn broking premises meant for the purpose of sale does not arise in terms of Section 6(2) 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the claim of the 2nd respondent herein that in the context of the case, charges under Section 6(2) and Sec. 27(1) would not co-exist ?' We are satisfied after hearing counsel on both sides and after going through the order of the Tribunal that the above questions of l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »