Chennai Court January 1991 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.
Srinivas Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Mad)17; [1991]188ITR22(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. These tax case references, though relating to different assessees and different assessment years, are dealt with together, as an important and interesting common question of law arises for decision. However, it will be convenient to refer to the facts and the questions arising for decision in each of these references. We shall first take up T. C. Nos. 764 to 767 of 1981, where the assessee, Srinivas Industries, is a registered firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of printed stationery, such as cartons, wedding cards, s labels, etc. The assessment years relevant to these references are 1974-75 to 1977-78. During the accounting year ended March 31, 1974, the assessee purchased two colour offset printing machines at a cost of Rs. 5,64,059.57 and installed them in March, 1974, and the total outlay including the cost of installation came to Rs. 5,69,060.32. Under a scheme sponsored by the Government of India styled as 10% (which was later increased to 15% subj...
Sree Arunachalaeswara Mills Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: [1991]81STC137(Mad)
Venkataswami, J. 1. In all these cases, a common question of law arises for our consideration, namely, whether cotton yarn blended with staple fibre in small percentage will still be cotton yarn for the purpose of section 14(ii-b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and consequently, will also be 'cotton yarn' for the purpose of entry 3 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as it stood prior to 1st March, 1982. If our answer to the above question is in the affirmative, the further question that also arises for our consideration, is whether the introduction of entry 18A in the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act by Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1980 makes any change in the above position. 2. Section 14(ii-b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Central Act') and entry 3 of the Second Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act') as they stood prior to 1st March 1982, re...
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Represented by the Chief Engineer, Tutico ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1991
Reported in: (1991)2MLJ138
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The first respondent filed a suit, O.S. No. 1604 of 1990 in the District Munsif Court, Madurai Town against the second respondent herein viz., the Union Bank of India, without impleading the petitioner herein for the relief of a permanent injunction, restraining the bank from making any payment to the petitioner on the basis of the suit bank guarantees, pending adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent or till 31.3.1991. Even a Bare perusal of the reliefs sought for clearly shows that the petitioner was a necessary party to the suit. The suit was directly meant to prejudice the interests of the petitioner. Admittedly, there was a contract between the petitioner and the first respondent with respect to certain works the value of which is said to be Rs. 1,91,43,571. The first respondent had apparently furnished bank guarantees in accordance with the contract. Disputes had arisen between the petitioner and the first respondent in resp...
The Madras Citizens Progressive Councel Vs. the Secretary to Govt. of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Mad390
ORDER1. The Madras Citizens Progressive Council represented by its Secretary has moved this writ petition in the nature of vox populi. The Council has made a grievance that the 4th respondent has been holding land in excess of the Ceiling area prescribed underthe Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the 1st and 2nd Respondents have not discharged their legal obligation of such excess land. The petitioner has stated that the 4th respondent applied for exemption under the Act in the name of construction of additional quarters for labourers, extension of the existing elementary school, construction of a community hall-workers samudaya Nala Kudam, construction of godown for storing cotton bales and starting a weaving unit and a bleaching plant. Although the 4th respondent had no satisfactory explanations to many of the objections to the request for exemption, the second respondent on 2-7-1986 conveyed to the 4th respondent that e...
Nallathambi Kounder Vs. Gopalakrishan Kounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1991
Reported in: I(1993)DMC463; (1992)IMLJ259
Abdul Hadi, J.1. A.S. No. 502 of 1980 is against O.S. No. 178 of 1978 on the file of Sub-Court, Tindivanam and Tr. A.S. No. 582 of 1984 is against O.S. No, 176 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court. Tindivanam. Plaintiff in both the suits is same, though the suit properties in each of the suits are different. Both the suits having been dismissed, the plaintiff has preferred these respective appeals.2. O.S. No. 176 of 1978 is for setting aside the alienations of the suits properties (7 items of land) made in favour of defendants 2 to 7 therein by the first defendant therein, who is the father of the plaintiff, and for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/2 share in the said suit properties and for past and future profits. According to the plaint, the suit properties are in the possession of the said alieness, as follows : Item No. 1 with the 3rd defendant; item No. 2 with the 4th defendant, item No. 3 with the 2nd defendant, item Nos. 4 and 5 with the 5th defendant, ite...
A.S. Duraisami Chettiar Sons Vs. S. Rathnaswami Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad132; (1991)IIMLJ183
1. The Second Appeal by the defendant firm is against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Coimbatore dt. 7-2-80 in A.S. No. 81/1979, reversing the judgment and decree of the Sub Judge, Coimbatore in O. S. No. 374 of 1976 dt. 13-9-1978. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 8,442.15, the amount due under the hundi Ex. A.1 dt. 12-4-1975 for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with interest thereon. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the grond that the suit hundi was not supported by consideration. But, the lower appellate court has decreed the suit on the ground that the suit hundi is supported by consideration. No doubt, there was some dispute even with reference to execution of the suit hundi. As per the written statement, the defendant only admitted his signature in the suit hundi, and his case is that at the time of the execution of a prior hundi, the plaintiff had obtained the signature of the defendant in two blank hundies which ought to have been probably utilised by the plaintiff...
R. Venkataswamy Naidu Vs. the Director, Enforcement Directorate, New D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad235; 1994(46)ECC38
ORDER1. The petitioner seeks a writ of declaration from this Court to declare that the transfer of interest held by the holding company, M/s. Snia Viscose, the fifth respondent company herein of its subsidiary company Sapina the 6th respondent herein in favour of M/s. Look Heath Properties Thirty limited, the 7th respondent herein, as viola-tive of Section 26(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and that the same is void in the absence of prior approval from the Reserve Bank of India.2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are: The petitioner is one of the promoters of the fourth respondent company, the South India Viscose Limited. The company was incorporated in the year 1957. The petitioner herein was on the Board of Directors till 31-7-1981 and was the Managing Director from the commencement of the company for nearly 24 years. He was also a shareholder of the company in the year 1981. The total 24.5% foreign shareholding was not held by the original ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. India Reinforcing Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: [1991]188ITR651(Mad)
Ratnam, J. 1. During the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, the assessee was a firm and, on January 21,1974, the firm was dissolved and its assets and liabilities as well as its entire business were taken over by M/s. Indian Reinforcing Corporation (Welded Mesh) Pvt. Ltd. as a going concern. In working out the total income of the assessee, the Income-tax Officer found that the balance-sheet, as on the day prior to the dissolution, showed the stock-in-trade as certified by the managing to the dissolution, showed the stock-in-trade as cost. the assessee was asked by the Income-tax Officer to furnish the market value of the closing stock and after furnishing the same at Rs. 11,61,259, the assessee maintained that the question of adopting the market rate for the valuation of the closing stock did not arise, as the assessee had been consistently valuing the closing stock at cost all these years, and thus had also been accepted by the Department. The Income-tax Officer,...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kumudam Publications P. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: [1991]188ITR84(Mad)
ORDERRatanam J.1. The assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business publishing periodicals called Kumudam and Kalkandu. These periodicals are printed by another private limited company, viz., Kumudam Printers Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the printer'). For the purpose of printing the periodicals, on August 1,1972, an agreement was entered into between the assessee and the printer containing certain terms and conditions which we shall notice in some detail later in the course of this judgment. During the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the assessee paid to the printer substantial amounts by way of charges for composing striking, taking colour form impression, printing cover pages and binding. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Income - tax Officer noticed that the assessee should have deducted tax under section 194C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). According...
Super Recording Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Government of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1991
Reported in: 1992(61)ELT17(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ Petition coming on for orders as to admission on this day upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Habibullah Badsha, Senior Counsel for M/s. E.S. Govindan, R. Sudhakar, and N. Kirubakaran, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. P. Narasimhan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents, the court made the following order :- Mr. Narasimhan, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents. By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order of the third respondent dated 4-1-1991 and to direct the third respondent to register the contract in question under the provisions of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 and consequently allow the clearance of the goods, extending the benefit of exemption Notification No. 315/83, dated 26-11-1983. 3. The short facts necessary ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »