Chennai Court September 1991 Judgments
P.A. Ameerajan Sahib Vs. Deputy Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1991
Reported in: 1992(58)ELT528(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is a dealer in tobacco liable to pay central excise duty. His place of duty was inspected and it was found that certain quantity of tobacco had been unauthorisedly removed. A show cause notice was issued on 19-3-1987 as to why levy of central excise should not be made and after getting petitioner's explanation an order of assessment was made on 12-9-1979. 2. At the same time the petitioner was also prosecuted for violation of the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act before the competent magistrate's Court which resulted in an order of acquittal of the petitioner. The revenue filed an appeal before this Court in C.A. No. 312 of 1983 and by judgment dated 11-9-1986 the acquittal was set aside and the case was remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is not known at what stage the remanded criminal case is now. However, before final adjudication of the criminal case after remit the present writ petition was filed when the petitioner was serve...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. thermo Electric Madras Manufacturing
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1991
Reported in: 1994LC153(Madras); 1992(58)ELT23(Mad)
Nainar Sundaram, J.1. The respondent succeeded before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal and the operative portion of the order of the Tribunal dated 20-9-1990 runs as follows :'Penalty is set aside. Demand of duty, if any, to be recalculated with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.' Ever since the order of the Tribunal, the respondent had been requesting the Authorities to work out the same and refund the excise duty. The respondent was confronted with only a recalcitrant attitude by the Authorities. Ultimately, it was informed that an appeal to the Supreme Court of India has been proposed. Vexed with the attitude, and to implement the order of the Tribunal, the respondent came to this Court in July, 1991 by way of W.P. No. 9417 of 1991 to direct the appellants to recalculate the demand of duty as against the respondent and grant refund of excise duty with interest at 18% per annum from the date of collection ...
Tag this Judgment!The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. R. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Mad40; (1991)IIMLJ635
ORDERNainar Sundaram, J.1. The writ appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 11437 of 1981. There is no gainsaying that the writ petition is one preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the writ appeal is one preferred pursuant to Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court. We are adverting to this fact for the purpose of showing that we arc exercising appellate jurisdiction, and not a jurisdiction as conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though the decision in the writ appeal may take in a disolusion of the relevant aspects under that Article. For the said appellatejurisdiction, the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, would apply. A view to the said effect has been expressed by a Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) has been a party, in Govindarajulu and another v. Dharam and another, C. M. A. S. R. No. 76357 of 1980 and C.M.P.S.R. No. 76358 of 19...
Tag this Judgment!B.M. Mehta and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1991
Reported in: [1993]199ITR471(Mad)
Kanakaraj, J. 1. A common question of law is involved in all these tax cases. While T. C. No. 1073 of 1982 relates to the assessment year 1974-75, all the other cases relate to the assessment year 1979-80. In all these cases, the interest received by the partners from the registered firm was sought to be brought to tax by initiating action under section 35 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). After considering the objections of the assessee, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer proceeded to assessee 60 per cent. of the total salary and interest received by the assessee from the firm. The assessees questioned in appeal only the inclusion of the interest received from the firm on the ground that the entire interest had been assessed to tax by the Central income-tax authorities. The appellate authority confirmed the assessment made by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the petitioner that ...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, Doars Transport (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Canara Bank and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: 1993ACJ602; AIR1992Mad324; (1992)IMLJ453
1. The second defendant in O.S. 24 of 1978 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Erode, has filed this second appeal, against the Judgment in A.S. 190 of 1979 on the file of District Judge, Erode in which the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and passed a decree, directing the second defendant to pay the suit claim with cost.2. The plaintiff's case is briefly as follows :The plaintiff is a firm doing business in handloom goods at Chennimalai. The first defendant is doing banking business at Chennimalai and is discounting bills with lorry receipts. The second defendant is a lorry transport company, having its branch office at Chennimalai. On 22-2-77, the plaintiff despatched two gunny bales of handloom bed sheets, valued at Rs. 3,120/- through the second defendant from Chennimalai to Kanpur under lorry receipts Nos. 10267 and 10268. The second defendant undertook to carry the consignment to Kanpur and deliver the same to the consignee viz., M/s. Ravi-kumar and Company, ...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. ZiaddIn Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: [1993]203ITR136(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the respondent in C. No. 1431 (27) /1980-81 dt. 1st Aug., 1983, insofar as it refuses to grant waiver of interest and penalty under ss. 139(8), 217 and 273(b) in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 and consequently direct the respondent to reconsider the applications dt. 3rd May, 1980, and 26th June, 1983. 2. It is unnecessary for me to go into the details having regard to the limited controversy before me. The fact remains that the petitioner, on 26th Nov., 1979, taking advantage of s. 273A of the IT Act, 1961, and disclosing the income for the asst. yrs. 1971-72 to 1977-78, paid the tax as calculated by him for the six assessment years to which a reference will be made hereinafter separately. After remitting the tax, the petitioner, on 4th Dec., 1979, filed returns of income for the six assessment years and the ITO, Salem-7, on 10th April...
Tag this Judgment!Sp.S.S. Medical Hall, a Partnership Business Represented by One of Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ472
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 242 of 1986, which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 472 of 1981. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In the petition for eviction it is stated asunder: The petition premises is situate at No. 11-12, East Chitrai Street, Madurai. The tenant is a partnership firm represented by one of its partners SP.P.S. Shanmugham Chettiar. The tenant is conducting a medical shop in the petition premises, on a monthly rent of Rs. 825. The owner of the petition premises is also a partnership firm represented by one of its partners. The landlord is carrying on business in glass and enamel wares and as general merchants in 90-92, East Avanimoola Street, Madurai. The petition premises is situate just behind the premises a...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Doars Transport (P) Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: II(1993)ACC692
Pratap Singh, J.1. The second defendant in O.S. No. 24 of 1978 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Erode, has filed this second appeal, against the judgment in A.S. No. 190 of 1979 on the file of District Judge, Erode, in which the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and passed a decree, directing the second defendant to pay the suit claim with costs.2. The plaintiffs case is briefly as follows:The plaintiff is a firm doing business in handloom goods at Chennimalai. The first defendant is doing banking business at Chennimalai and is discounting bills with lorry receipts. The second defendant is a lorry transport company, having its branch office at Chennimalai. On 22.2.1977, the plaintiff despatched two gunny bales of handloom bedsheets, valued at Rs. 3,120/- through the second defendant from Chennimalai to Kanpur Under lorry receipt Nos. 10267 and 10268. The second defendant undertook to carry the consignment to Kanpur and -deliver the same to the consignee, viz., Rav...
Tag this Judgment!Sumitra Bai Vs. V.G. Shyamsundar Sah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1991
Reported in: (1992)1MLJ595
ORDERSwamidurai, J.1. This appeal is filed by Sumitra Bai, wife of the respondent herein aggrieved with the order made by the learned District Judge, Chingleput in I.A. No. 56 of 1989 refusing to set aside the exparte decree made in C.M.A.No.22 of 1988 on his file.2. The respondent filed O.P.No.53 of 1986 for nullity of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. That petition was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram. The wife filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.22 of 1988 before the learned District Judge Chengalpattu under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On 30.1.1989 the said appeal was dismissed for default. Then on the same date the wife filed I.A.No.56 of 1989 under Order 41, Rule 19, C.P.C. for restoring the appeal after setting aside the exparte decree made in C.M.A.No.22 of 1988. In support of that application, it is represented by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Mr. Nagu Sah, an advocate practising at Madras who appeared for the appellant in...
Tag this Judgment!J. Sethuraman Vs. V. Thiruvengadathan, Inspecting Assistant Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1991
Reported in: [1992]196ITR335(Mad)
Arunachalam, J. 1. The petitioner is A-8 in C.C. No. 29 of 1985, pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Madurai. At the instance of the respondent who is the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Assessment Range-I), Madurai, he along with nine others are being prosecuted for alleged commission of offences punishable under section 120B, section 192, section 196 and section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 276C(1), 277 and 278 read with section 278B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Some of the directors appear to have preferred along with the company Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4154 of 1985 (Geethanjali Mills Ltd. v. Thiruvengadathan [1981] 179 ITR 558) before this court for quashing the prosecution in very same calendar case. The petitioner was not a party to the said petition. Janarthanam J., by his order dated September 9, 1988, refused to quash further proceedings holding that the q...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »