Chennai Court February 1991 Judgments
Subbulakshmi Ammol Vs. Balasubramanian and Others
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad48
ORDER1. The order of the executing court dismissing the petition for execution is unsustainable. The petitioner obtained a decree against the respondents on 30-11-1963. Execution proceedings were filed on 22-4-1975. It was taken on file on M.P. SC No. 74 of 1975. The property of the Judgment-debtor was brought to sale, but the sale was adjourned on the ground of no bidders. The judgment-debtor filed a suit C.S. No. 83 of 1977 and prayed for on order of injunction in I.A. 446 of 1977 restraining the decree-holder from proceeding further with the execution of the decree. On 28-2-1978 and order of injunction was passed. Purasant to the said order of injunction, the exceeding court closed the execution petition on 30-8-1976, but directed the attachment to continue. The suit O.S. No. 83 of 1977 was dismissed on 11-3-1982. On 27-3-1982, the present execution petition was filed by the decreeholder and numbered on S. P. No. 17 of 1983. The decree-holder also filed a memo in the executing court...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Bharat Dairy Farm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 1992(37)ECC99; 1992(61)ELT25(Mad)
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. 1. Would the conversion of cream into butter by stirring, amount to a process of manufacture attracting the levy of purchase tax under Section 7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') This is the only question which requires our consideration in these revision petitions filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, dated November 28, 1979, passed in C.T.A. Nos. 252 and 309 of 1979 and C.T.M.P. Nos. 230 and 212 of 1979. The circumstances in which this question arises are as follows : 2. The assessee in both these revision petitions is one and the same dealer, Bharat Diary Farm. The assessee sold butter converted from cream purchased by it. The sale of butter was reflected by the assessee in its returns and the accounts. The assessment in T.C.R. No. 586 of 1981 relates to the assessment year 1976-77 while the assessment in T.C.R. No. 857 of 1981 relates to the...
Tag this Judgment!Subbulakshmi Ammal Vs. R. Balasubramanian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ380
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The order of the executing court dismissing the petition for execution is unsustainable. The petitioner obtained a decree against the respondents on 30.11.1963. Execution proceedings were filed on 22.4.1975. It was taken on file as E.P. No. 74 of 1975. The property of the Judgment-debtor was brought to sale, but the sale was adjourned on the ground of no bidders. The judgment-debtor filed a suit O.S. No. 83 of 1977 and prayed for an order of injunction in I.A. No. 446 of 1977 restraining the decree-holder from proceeding further with the execution of the decree. On 28.2.1978 an order of injunction was passed. Pursuant to the said order of injunction, the executing court closed the execution petition on 30.8.1978, but directed the attachment to continue. The suit O.S. No. 83 of 1977 was dismissed on 11.3.1982. On 27.3.1982, the present execution petition was filed by the decree-holder and numbered as E.P. No. 17 of 1983. The decree-holder also filed a memo in the e...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Nageswaran Vs. T.R. Balakrishnan and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad109; (1991)IMLJ378
ORDER1. The concurrent findings of theCourts below arc wholly unsustainable. The first respondent herein was adjudged insolvent and the Official Receiver brought his property to sale. As regards the subject matter of present dispute, the appellant purchased the same in the sale held on 12-1-1977. The first respondent filed a petition u/S. 68(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the sale. In the petition three grounds were urged. The first was that there was no proper notice of sale issued to all the 170 creditors. The second objection was that the sale was adjourned from 17-12-1976 to 12-1-1977 and the Official Receiver had no jurisdiction to adjourn a sale in the midst of the holding of the sale. Thirdly it was contended that the mortgage over the property was not disclosed in the proclamation for sale and therefore the sale was invalid. 2. When the matter was heard by the Subordinate Judge, Salem, no material was placed before him in support of the above three contentions...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Catherene Traders and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: [1991]81STC228(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. Two different assessees had been subjected to assessment and tax on the packing materials used for export of banians. They, however, succeeded before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in getting an order that the sales of polythene bags to the export merchants by them for the purpose of packing banians for export to foreign countries were not liable to tax. The State has preferred these petitions against the said order of the Tribunal. 2. It is not in dispute that polythene bags were sold by the respondents/assessees to the export merchants for packing of banians. It is also not in dispute that the polythene bags were utilised for packing of the banians, which were exported to foreign countries. The case of the petitioner herein is that the records produced in support of their claim by the assessees/respondents reveal that goods were exported by the exporters, but there was no mention in the bill of lading about the use of polythe...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajamani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: II(1992)ACC541; 1992ACJ354
T. Somasundaram, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore, against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein are the claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981. The sixth respondent and seventh respondent herein who are the owner and driver respectively of the vehicle involved in the accident, were respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981 and the appellant insurance company was the third respondent therein. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed M.C.O.P. No. 200 of 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the appellant herein claiming payment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of the death of one Purushothaman, the husband of the 1st respondent, son of the 2nd respondent and father of minor respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in a motor accident that took place on 6....
Tag this Judgment!Dcw Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: 1996(56)ECC47
ORDERKanakaraj, J.1. The petitioner in all the cases is the same. The petitioner-company manufactures caustic soda by electrolysis of sodium chloride brine by BASF type high amperage mercury cells. During this process in the primary cell a mixture of gases consisting of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapour and a substantial percentage of chlorine content are produced. This mixture of gases is fed through pipe line and diverted into two branches. One branch goes to the liquid chlorine plant, with which we are not concerned. The other branch is taken to a furnace where it is burnt with hydrogen resulting in hydrochloric acid fumes which are absorbed in water to make commercial grade hydrochloric acid. The bone of contention between the parties is whether the mixture of gases liberated in the primary and taken through pipe lines for manufacture of hydrochloric acid, otherwise called wet chlorine, is goods within the meaning of Section 3 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and whethe...
Tag this Judgment!S. Raju Pillai and anr. Vs. Paramasivam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ467
Srinivasan, J.1.The defendants are the appellants in this appeal.2. The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement dated7.5.1979. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant is entitled to 31/2 cents of the suit property and the second defendant is entitled to 21/2 cents and they jointly executed an agreement on 7.5.1979 marked as Ex.A-1. The consideration agreed is Rs. 11,700, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,200 was received by the defendants by way of advance. As per the agreement, the plaintiff was to take over the debt due under a loan agreement executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs mother by name Mahamayee Ammal. A sum of Rs. 2,500 was adjusted towards that and the balance was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub Registrar. According to the plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; but the defendants were not inclined to execute the sale deed. A notice was issued by...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Nageswaran Vs. T.R. Balakrishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)1MLJ378
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The concurrent findings of the Courts below are wholly unsustainable. The first respondent herein was adjudged insolvent and the Official Receiver brought his property to sale. As regards the subject matter of present dispute, the appellant purchased the same in the sale held on 12.1.1977. The first respondent filed a petition under Section 68(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the sale. In the petition three grounds were urged. The first was that there was no proper notice of sale issued to all the 170 creditors. The second objection was that the sale was adjourned from 17.12.1976 to 12.1.1977 and the Official Receiver had no jurisdiction to adjourn a sale in the midst of the holding of the sale. Thirdly it was contended that the mortgage over the property was not disclosed in the proclamation for sale and therefore the sale was invalid.2. When the matter was heard by the Subordinate Judge, Salem, no material was placed before him in support of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Untied Nilgiri Tea Estates Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1991
Reported in: [1991]191ITR397(Mad)
Mishra, J.1. The petitioner, a tea estate in the Nilgiris, has moved this court against the order of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal holding, inter alia, that (i) the income received by way of sales of barks of wattle trees can only be treated as agricultural income falling under the scope of section 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act and (ii) sales of cut trees (loosely termed as firewood) will also attract tax under the said Act. 2. The cases relate to the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. It is not in dispute that the petitioner grew tea in the estates owned by it in the Nilgiris, It, however, sold wattle bark and firewood for Rs. 1,51,716 and timber for Rs. 1,95,000 during the assessment year 1973-74. The Central Income-tax Officer, however, did not include these amounts in the assessment for taxes. But the Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued notice under section 35 and revise the assessment by including a sum of Rs. 1,51,71...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »