Chennai Court June 1994 Judgments
A. Veeriah thever Vs. the Commissioner for Excise and Prohibition and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad288
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. The appellant was the successful bidder in the auction held on 29-5-1981 under Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). His bid was for Rs. 1,075/-. That was provisionally accepted under the Rules by the Sale Officer and it was recommended to the Collector for confirmation. The Collector has, however, found that the bid was less than the upset price of Rs. 3,000/- and he exercised his powers under R. 20 and directed a re-sale. In the re-auction held there was no bidder at all. Hence the Collector confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioner/appellant herein and communications were issued to that effect. The petitioner refused to receive the communication and it was served by way of affixture. As the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the sale, re-auction was directed by the Collector and in the re-auction the highest bid was for Rs. 525/- by a third parly. That was confirmed an...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Etc. Devasthanam, Through Its Executive Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ545
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The decree-holder is the petitioner herein. This revision is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 149 of 1979 in O.S. No. 22 of 1963. The decree-holder/plaintiff filed E.P. No. 149 of 1979 under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C., to direct the first defendant in O.S. No. 22 of 1963 to obey the decree of permanent injunction as per Clause (1) of the decree, granted by the High Court in A.S. No. 454 of 1955 and on failure to obey to commit him to prison. Under Clause (1) of the decree passed in A.S. No. 454 of 1955 by this Court against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 22 of 1963 the respondent/defendants 1 and 2 and their men, were restrained by means of a permanent injunction from interferring with the possession and enjoyment of melmadam Vaidyanathasamy temple with its appurtenant. The 1st defendant filed a counter stating that he is a hereditary poojari of the said temple. According to him he is in continuous possession of the temple and he is performing...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Good Luck Travels Vs. the Joint Secretary Cpy and the Chief Paspo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad240
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order dismissing the application for injunction filed by the writ petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition and also vacating the interim injunction granted on 20-1-1994. 2. The writ petition is one challenging the order of the Joint Secretary and Chief Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, passed on 22-11-1993 disapproving the application for renewal of licence originally granted to the petitioner. The petitioner was functioning as atravel agent under the licence issued by the department. Its licence was to expire on 30-6-1993. He had applied for renewal. On account of an order passed in an earlier writ petition in this Court, the writ petitioner continued to do his business, though there was no renewal as the order permitted the petitioner to function as a travel agent till the disposal of the renewal application. 3. By the order impugned in the writ petition, the Chief Passport Officer has decid...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Gounder Vs. Palaniswami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ532
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment rendered in C.M.A. No. 31 of 1987, which in turn arose out of the order passed in I.P. No. 3 of 1985. The petitioner in the insolvency petition is the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein filed I.P. No. 3 of 1985 under Sections 7, 10 and 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, to declare himself as an insolvent. The said petition was dismissed by the first court. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court confirmed the order passed by the Insolvency Court. It is against that judgment and decree passed in C.M.A. No. 31 of 1987, the petitioner is in revision before this Court.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as under:The courts below are not correct in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, without considering the prima facie case made out by him. The 7th respondent in the insolvency petition has already obtained...
Tag this Judgment!Subramani Vs. Dr. N. Govindarajulu Represented by His Power of Attorne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)2MLJ378
ORDERThanikkachalam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the grounds of immediate demolition and reconstruction and wilful default in payment of rent under Sections 14(1)(b) and 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The case of the landlord is as under:The premises at old No. 319 and new door No. 4, Murugappa Street, Triplicane, Madras-5 belongs to the petitioner in the eviction petition. The respondent in the eviction petition is the tenant in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 8. The petitioner has already filed a petition for eviction in the year 1968 under Section 14(1)(b)of the Act. Even from that lime onwards the tenant was not paying the rent to the landlord. The tenant denied the title of the landlord. Counter was filed in R.C.O.P. No. 3112 of 1969 and eviction was ordered in the sai...
Tag this Judgment!A. Abdul Samath Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1994
Reported in: 1995(78)ELT429(Mad)
Abdul Hadi, J. 1. This writ petition seeks to quash the show-cause notice dated December 29, 1993, issued by the first respondent under section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why enquiry should not be held under the said section and why confiscation of the foreign currencies seized from the petitioner should not be made. As per the impugned notice the abovesaid foreign currencies seized are : (a) US $ 1,92,493, (b) Saudi Riyals 5,44,000, (c) Qatar Riyals 12,000, (d) UAE Dinar 70,500, and (e) Singapore $ 11. 2. The show-cause notice is thus for adjudication under section 51 against the contravention of the provisions of the Act said to have been committed by the petitioner for determining the quantum of penalty levied under section 50 of the Act. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner made only three submissions before me. Even with reference to the first submission, when I...
Tag this Judgment!Vijay Mines and Minerals, Annupperpalayam Vs. the Director of Industri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1994
Reported in: AIR1995Mad370
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is a partnership firm. The petitioner in his affidavit in support of his petition has averred that he applied for grant of a lease for quarrying black granite in an extent of 4.97 hectares in Kumbaikadu, Palamadai Extension Reserve Forest, Bangur Range, Coim-batore North Forest Division, for a period of five years from 10-1-1975 to 10-1-1980. The lease was duly granted. A lease deed was signed between the petitioner and the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore, North Forest Division, second respondent herein on 10-1-1975. Several conditions were stipulated in the lease deed. According to the lease deed, the lessee was to pay rents and royalties in any Government Treasury before the 10th January of every year. The lessee was expected to pay before the expiry of the period or on determination of the lease by either party, an amount equal to the annual dead rent or such higher amount as may be fixed by the District Forest Officer, Coimbatore in his discretion ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sethu Film Distributors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1994
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Mad)351; [1995]212ITR620(Mad)
Janarthanam, J. 1. This is a reference, at the instance of the Revenue, under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the I. T. Act'), requiring this court to decide the following questions of law : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the two sums of Rs. 15,630 and Rs. 21,720 claimed as business loss should be allowed, while computing the income of the assessee for the year 1972-73 (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal's finding that the assessee had advanced money in the course of the money-lending business is based on valid materials and is a reasonable view to take on the facts of the case ?' 2. The respondent-assessee is a registered partnership firm, carrying on business in film distribution. As per the agreement entered into with Messrs. Visalakshi Films on September 30, 1964, the assessee advanced a sum of Rs. 80,000 and in consideration of the amount, the assessee was to get exhibition ...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatavaradha Reddiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1994
Reported in: [1995]214ITR76(Mad)
Mishra J. 1. These cases have two questions common to all of them, namely : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the word 'house' mentioned in section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act includes 'cinema theatre' and (2) Whether the basic exemption is available to the petitioner or not ?' 2. It is, however, conceded at the Bar that the answer to the first question will decide whether the basic exemption is available to the assessee or not. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. At the material point, however, the karta of the family was a partner in a firm called Raman Theatre and was having 5/12ths share. He filed a wealth-tax return accordingly for the year 1974-75, admitting a taxable wealth of Rs. 1,73,770 and claimed a deduction of Rs. 82,810 under section 5(1)(iv), the sum representing his share of the cost of the cinema building; he claimed that cinema house is also a house, which is qualified for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. The We...
Tag this Judgment!Rane (Madras) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1994
Reported in: (1995)128CTR(Mad)450; [1995]212ITR583(Mad)
Mishra, J. 1. The assessee-company has kept a dispute as to eligibility of certain payments in excess of the limit under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), alive on pleas which hardly require exercise of greater wisdom than ordinary for rejection. The company claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,01,150 being the emoluments and perquisites to the managing director should be deducted as expenditure falling under section 37 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the expenditure in excess of Rs. 72,000, the limit as per section 40(c) of the Act. The Commissioner confirmed the disallowance. The company preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and urged that though sitting fees, reimbursement of medical expenses, provision for personal accident benefit, insurance, etc., to the managing director qualified for deduction under section 37 of the Act as expenditure falling under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession', the limitations under section 40(c)(i) and (ii...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »