Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1978Mad285
Veeraswami, C.J.1. This reference comes before us because of the conflict of opinion on the question whether Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 is applicable to a case where a husband died intestate before the Act came into force and his widow inherited his properties, but was not possessed of those properties and died subsequent to the commencement of the Act. One of us was a party to the reference. Since then has come Daya Singh v. Dhankaur : [1974]3SCR528 which, in almost similar circumstances and after dealing with the conflict of opinion of some oi the High Courts, answered the question in the affirmative.2. Were the question res integra, it would have been open to debate and doubt as to whether Section 8 was intended to cover reversionary succession as in the instant case. The Act was, no doubt, intended to amend and codify the law regarding intestate succession. The intention of the Act was to cover, as far as possible, the entire field. That was why Section 4 gave the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1954Mad873; [1954]24CompCas323(Mad)
1. This is a reference by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, under Rule 17, Schedule IV (Taxation Rules) of the Madras City Municipal Act. The only question in this case is whether the South India Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., Madras, is liable to pay the tax on companies to the Corporation of Madras. The learned Chief Judge has held that it is not and has set aside the assessment made on it. Under Section 110, Madras City Municipal Act, every company which transacts business within the City in any half year for not less than sixty days in the aggregate shall pay a half yearly tax assessed in accordance with the rules in Schedule IV, but in no case exceeding rupees one thousand. "Company" is defined in Section 3(9-A) thus: " 'Company' means a company as defined in the Indian Companies Act, 1913, or formed in pur-suance of an Act of Parliament or of Royal Charter or Letters Patent, or of an Act of the Legislature of a British Possession, or of a law of an India...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2002]127STC491(Mad)
ORDERR. Jayasimha Babu, J. 1.The petitioner had imported wattle extract in bulk and after collecting the value thereof from such of it's members who had desired the import to be made, made over to them the wattle extract in the quantity desired by the member. The orders on the foreign buyer was placed by the petitioner, and all documentation concerning the import were in the name of the petitioner. The payment to the foreign supplier was made by the petitioner. The delivery made by it to it's members was made after collecting from them the consideration. The petitioner contends that the allotment and delivery so made by it to it's participating members for consideration does not result in a taxable sale. 2. Petitioner had contended before the Tribunal to which the writ petition that had been filed before this Court was transferred, that Section 2(n)(v) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for levy of tax on supply of goods on unincorporated association to it's members...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR2003Mad50
P.K. Misra, J.1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Though the matter is listed for considering the question of direction, since the same question is involved in the main writ petition and counter has been filed and the question raised is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, on consent of the counsels appearing, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order passed by the second respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay deficit stamp duty before registering the document filed by him. On 18.9.2000, a sale deed was executed in favour of the present petitioner and the petitioner has paid the consideration amount as reflected in the sale deed. On the basis of such consideration amount, stamp duty was paid and the sale deed was presented for registration before the second respondent on the very same day. The second respondent considering that market value has not been reflected, called upon the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2009)6MLJ321
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. The night of second December, 1984, was a black letter day for the Indian people when toxic gas emanated from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) (owned by a multi national company viz. Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), with whom the plaintiff Company got merged itself during February, 2001) killed as many as 3000 people. Over 200,000 people got severe injuries. The case for its tort liability filed against the said company though reached its finality, the victims of the holocaust are yet to be completely rehabilitated. Speaking about the Bhopal litigation, Dr.Upendra Baxi in his book in 'Inconvenient Forum and Convenient Catastrophe: The Bhopal case' (N.M. Tripathi Pvt. Ltd., Bombay 1986), noted as follows:The Bhopal litigation is unparalleled in the abundance of its ironies. And the cruelest and the most saddening of all these is provided by the fact that all these Herculean endeavours are for the 200,000 odd Bhopal victims who are being further revictimized i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [2010]320ITR472(Mad)
ORDERT.S. Sivagnanam, J.1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the respondent dated 06.03.2006 and for a consequential direction to allow the petition for waiver of interest filed by the petitioner on 18.07.2005.2. The petitioner, an income tax assessee, is engaged in the business of collecting entrance fees from the markets controlled by the Melur Municipality, Madurai District. He is also a civil contractor and a real estate agent and also carrying on agricultural operations. A search was conducted by the Income Tax department on 05.03.1997 in the business premises of the petitioner. Consequent upon search and seizure operation a notice under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act (in short, Act) was issued on 31.03.1997, requiring the petitioner to prepare a true and correct return of his total income including the undisclosed income in respect of which he is assessable for the block period commencing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto, directing the third respondent to show cause by what authority he claims to hold the post of the Principal, Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai and consequently remove the third respondent from that post.ORDER1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto to direct the third respondent to show cause on what authority he holds the post of Principal of Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai.2. I have heard Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. D.Gnanasekaran, learned counsel for the third respondent, Mr.V.M.G.Ramakkannan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, learned counsel for the seventh respondent.3. The third respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachments made in Plot No.290A, Avvai Nagar, (New ASTC HUDCO), Hosur-635 109, Dharmapuri District by the 3rd respondent or any other person and retain the above said plot as park as per the site plan of Tamilnadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning.O R D E R1. Temple, constructed in a place earmarked for a park under a Scheme, is being used as a shield, against the law of encroachment.2. Petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachments made in Plot No.290A, Avvai Nagar, (New ASTC HUDCO), Hosur-635 109, Dharmapuri District by the 3rd respondent or any other person and retain the above said plot as park as per the site plan of Tamilnadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit approved by the Director of Town and Country Plannin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1966Mad36; (1965)1MLJ431
(1) The petitioner in W.P. 415 of 1961 was a private limited company. It had borrowed various amounts from the Reliance Bank of India Ltd. and had mortgaged certain immovable properties to that bank. By a power-of-attorney executed by the petitioner on 13-8-1957, the bank was authorised to sell the immovable properties. The document was stamped with stamps of the value of Rs. 11-4-0. On presentation of the power-of-attorney for registration, the Joint Sub Registrar called for particulars of the debts due to the bank. Thereafter, the Joint Sub-Registrar impounded the document. The District Registrar in his proceedings dated 9-10-1960 passed an order to the effect that the document numbered as P. 111 of 1957 was a power of attorney for consideration. made out of the amount of the debts owing to the Bank, and was chargeable with a stamp duty of Rs. 7138-80 under Art. 48(e) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act as amended. He called upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty and im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1971Mad380
1. Petitioner presented a plaint in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Erode, praying for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by him on 20th August, 1962 and 1st February, 1967, in favour of the first defendant, on the ground that the defendants took him to Erode and provided him with intoxicating drinks and liquors and secured the documents. He correctly classified the claim as one falling under Section 40 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, but paid the Court-fee on the amounts for which the sale deeds were executed. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge returned the plaint to the petitioner, directing him to value the suit property according to the market value on the date of the suit. Hence the petitioner has come forward with this revision petition.2. Section 40 (1) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is as follows:In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or o...
Tag this Judgment!