Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-07-1987
Reported in : [1988]69STC195(Mad)
Swamikkannu, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant, Messrs. Hindustan Import Export Corporation, Madras-1, under section 37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30th June, 1978 made in its B.P. Rt. No. 2185 of 1978, with respect to the assessment year 1973-74. The appellant was assessed on the reported total and taxable turnovers of Rs. 49,11,678 and Rs. 49,04,126 respectively under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sales Tax Act') for the assessment year 1973-74, by order of the assessing authority T.N.G.S.T. No. 11080 of 1973-74 dated 11th June, 1976. The levy of tax was as detailed below : Rs. 45,33,628 was taxed at 3 1/2 per cent Rs. 3,49,442 was taxed at 7 per cent Rs. 28,759 was taxed at 9 per cent. It was noticed by the assessing authority that the dealer had collected surcharge amounting to Rs. 3,276.67 on the sales effected in its branch at Sivakasi. The sales do ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-13-1987
Reported in : [1988]170ITR12(Mad)
Maheswaran, J. 1. In these petitions, the petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this court to amend the complaint by adding the name of the second respondent already on record, as representing the firm of the first accused, Balaji Chit Funds. 2. The petitioner has filed a complaint against the accused - respondents and another, Ponnuswami, who is since dead, for offences under sections 120B, 193, 420, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and under sections 276(c) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The summons was received by the second accused on behalf of the first accused. But, the firm, namely, the first accused, has not been described as being represented by the second accused. The respondents filed petitions in Crl. MPs. Nos. 2594, 2596, 2598, 2600 and 2602 of 1986 on the file of this court for quashing the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 60 to 64 of 1986 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, pending against them. During the arguments on those petitions, a ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-19-1987
Reported in : (1988)2MLJ123
ORDERS.A. Kader, J.1. This unfortunate litigation pertains to the well known 'Thanthi Trust' which publishes the popular Tamil daily 'DINATHAN-THI' (DAILY THANTHI) simultaneously at present from nine centres in Tamil Nadu. This Public trust was founded by a deed of trust dated 1-3-1954 by the late S.B. Adityan, reverentially known as Si.PaAdityanar, a former speaker of the Madras Legislative Assembly and a former Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The appellants are the grandsons of the Founder, being the sons of his elder son B.R Adityan. The first respondent herein, B.S. Adityan, is the younger son of the Founder. The object of this trust is to establish 'DINATHANTHI' or 'DAILY THANTHI' as an organ of educated public opinion for the Tamil reading public, to disseminate news and to ventilate opinion upon all matters of public interest through the said newspaper and to maintain the said newspaper and its position in efficient condition devoting the surplus income of the said new...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-28-1987
Reported in : [1992]198ITR390(Mad)
Ramalingam, J. 1. These petitions have been filed by various persons who are accused in C. C. No. 179 of 1985, on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences Wing-I), Egmore, Madras, to call for the records and quash the said proceedings in the following circumstances. 2. Accused Nos. 9 and 13 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3409 of 1985, accused Nos. 11 and 12 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3412 of 1985, accused Nos. 18 and 20 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3679 of 1985, accused Nos. 6, 7 and 10 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3695 of 1985, accused Nos. 1 to 5 have filed Crl. M.P. No. 3711 of 1985 and accused Nos. 8 and 19 have filed Crl. M.P. 3879 of 1985. 3. The complainant is the Chief Commissioner (Admn.), Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu I, Madras-34. A-1, N. K. Mohnot is an income-tax practitioner and is the son of A-3, Panchandas Mohnot. A-2 is a Hindu undivided family consisting of accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, A-5 and A-11. A-4 Sanjay Prakash Mohnot and A-5, Anjay Prakash Moh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-23-1987
Reported in : [1992]198ITR750(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J.1. The Income-tax Department, which had filed a complaint against the respondent herein for offences under section 193 and 419 of India Peal Code, 1860, and section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and which had been taken on file by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I, Egmore, Madras, as C. C. No. 1286 of 1985, which complaint Procedure Code, on the ground that batta expenses for issuance of process to the respondent had not been paid, challenges the correctness of the above order in the present revision. 2. Since the matter has been disposed of by the trial court even before the accused had appeared, notice is not given to the respondent. In view of the decision of this court in Thiyagarajan v. Ayyamperumal [1983] L. W. 212, wherein the learned judge held that, in a revision against dismissal under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, notice to the accused need not be sent and the accused need not be heard. What would apply to a dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-16-1987
Reported in : AIR1988Mad275
Chandurkar, C.J.1. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are members of the Tamil Nadu Legiaslative Assembly. The Tamil Nadu legislative Assembly passed resolution on 22nd December, 1986 declaring that the petitioners were unfit to continue as members of the House and that they were expelled from the membership of the House and that they could not continue to be members of the House. It was further resolved that their seats became vacant. The resolution passed by the Assembly was on a motion moved by the Leader of the House. The English translation of the resolution original of which was in Tamil as adopted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on 22nd December, 1986 as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary of the same date, reads as follows: -'Whereas the Executive Committee of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam resolved in its meeting held on 9th November, 1986 at Coimbatore that the portion of Part XVII of the Constitution of India which provides for Hindi t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-24-1987
Reported in : [1992]198ITR152(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The petitioners who are accused Nos. 6 and 7, respectively, in C.C. Nos. 130 to 133 of 1984, pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.) Egmore, Madras, for offences under sections 276CC and 278B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), invoke the inherent powers of this court under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the above proceedings. 2. Facts briefly are : On the allegation that the petitioners are directors of the company, Messrs. Shivaji Films (P.) Ltd. (the First accused in the case), the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 6 and 7 along with the other directors of the first accused company in the complaint filed by the respondent herein. 3. During the trial, PWs-1 and 2 had been examined and the case was posted for questioning the accused under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. At that stage, the petitioners have come to this court to quash the proceedings on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-24-1987
Reported in : (1988)68CTR(Mad)119; [1988]173ITR206(Mad)
Padmini Jesudurai, J. 1. The Union of India, represented by the Second Income-tax Officer, City Circle 11. Madras-34, has preferred these revisions under sections 397 and 401, Criminal Procedure Code, for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-II), Egmore, Madras, in C. C. Nos. 232, 231 and 233 of 1984, discharging the respondents of offences under section 120B read with sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the above sections will not apply since the Income-tax Officer had not been declared to be a court under section 195(3), Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the revisions are briefly as follows : The first respondent is a registered firm, carrying on the business in manufacturing, purchasing and selling drums and kegs used in painting industry and other materials and had been assessed to income-tax. The other respondents are its partners. For the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-01-1987
Reported in : 2(1988)ACC8
Swamikkannu, J.1. This appeal coming on for hearing on Thursday the 27th day of August 1987 and on this day upon perusing the petition of appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the argument of Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Advocate for the Appellant, and of Mr. S.K. Ramamurthy, Advocate for the Respondents, the Court made the following order:2. The first respondent Anna Transport Corporation Limited, Salem, by its Managing Director, is the appellant herein. The second respondent Subramant, has not been impleaded in the appeal. The petitioners 1 to 3 are the respondents herein. The appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle in question, who was found to be liable, on the ground that the driver of the appellant had been responsible for driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and was also directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- apportioning the said compensation, namely Rs. 20,000/- to the first peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-15-1987
Reported in : (1988)1MLJ80
S.A. Kader, J.1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O.S. 331 of 1971. The 1st defendant-State of Tamil Nadu is the appellant.2. This is a suit for damages. The 1st defendant is the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Collector of Madurai. The 2nd defendant is the Assistant Engineer and the 3rd defendant is the Junior Engineer, serving under the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is the Contractor. It may be mentioned here and now that defendants 2 to 4 have been impleaded subsequently. The plaintiff is the owner of the property bearing door No. 25, Obla Kobla Padithurai Road in T.S. No. 1215 in Ward No. 4 in Madurai Town. Immediately north of the plaintiff's property runs the Panaiyur irrigation channel. The northern wall of the plaintiff's property abutting the channel is a pucca one constructed with rubble stones, cement and lime mortar to prevent erosion by the waters of the channel. The 1st defendant started construction of a regu...
Tag this Judgment!