Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)132CTR(Mad)358; [1996]217ITR609(Mad)
mishra, j.1. the assessee, an indian company, has been using diesel powered mechanised trawlers in the course of its business of catching fish from the sea and selling them. it claimed development rebate of 40% under s. 33 of it act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), on its mechanised diesel fishing trawlers and deduction in respect of the profits and gains allegedly derived from the trawlers under s. 80j of the act. the ito declined to grant the higher rate of rebate as claimed by the assessee and also rejected the claim of the assessee under s. 80j of the act. the cit(a) held that the trawlers cannot be considered as 'ship' for the purpose of s. 80j of the act and the same ratio would apply regarding the assessee's claim for the higher rate of deduction under the development rebate. on the revenue's (sic) further appeal, the tribunal noted that the assessee-company carries on business of catching and selling fish from the seas by plying diesel powered mechanised trawlers. it accepted the verdict of the cit, however, on both counts and rejected the assessee's claims. the assessee proposed and the tribunal has accordingly referred to us the following three questions : '1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in denying the higher development rebate of 40% on mechanised diesel fishing trawlers 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in denying the relief under the provisions .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1998(2)CTC426; (2001)3MLJ178
order1. since the issue involved in all these appeals is one and the same, the appeals are taken up for joint disposal.2. in s.a.nos. 95 and 96 of 1998 notice of motion was ordered on 28.1.98. in s.a.no. 159 of 98 notice of motion was ordered on 2.3.98 and directed to be posted alongwith s.a.nos. 95 and 96 of 1998. when s.a.no. 702 of 1998 was listed for admission on 2.7.98 i was not inclined to admit the second appeal. then the counsel for the appellants represented that there are other connected appeals in which notice of motion was ordered. hence i directed those appeals to be posted together in order to dispose of all the appeals. in s.a.nos. 95,96 and 159 of 1998 the tamil nadu electricity board is the appellant. the respondents are various fish farms. in s.a.no. 702 of 1998 the appellants are the owners of the land who are having a fish farm and the respondent is tamil nadu electricity board.3. the respondents in s.a.nos.95,96 and 159 of 1998 filed the suits o.s. no. 585 of 1991, o.s. no. 276 of 1991, and o.s.no. 1143 of 1993 respectively on the file of the district munsif court. myladuthurai and the appellants in s.a.no. 702 of 1998 filed the suit o.s.no. 429 of 1996 on the file of the district munsif court. mannargudi for declaration that fish farming is 'agriculture'. the district munsif mayiladuthurai dismissed the suits filed by the respondents in s.a.nos. 95,96 and 159 of 1998. the respondents preferred appeals in s.a.no. 19 of 1992, a.s.no. 18 of 1992 and a.s.no. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2002LC130(Madras); 2003(151)ELT520(Mad)
orderv.s. sirpurkar, j.1. this judgment shall govern and dispose of two writ petitions, which were initially filed in the gujarat high court and originally registered as special civil application nos.3282 and 3279 of 1989. while spl. c.a. no. 3282 of 1989 was filed by adani exports limited, spl. c.a. no. 3279 of 1989 was filed by one inter continental (india), a partnership firm.2. both these special civil appeals as they were filed before the gujarat high court were allowed by the high court by a common judgment dated 3-4-2000 and 17-2-2000. this judgment was challenged before the apex court by the union of india, respondents herein vide civil appeal nos.6320 and 6321 of 2000. the apex court allowed these appeals only on the ground of 'territorial jurisdiction'. following is the operative part of the judgment:'for the reasons stated above, these appeals succeed and the same are hereby allowed. the impugned judgment is set aside. we further direct that special civil application nos.3282/99 and 3279/99 filed by the respondents are hereby directed to be transferred to the high court of madras at chennai forthwith and on receipt of the papers, we request the chief justice of the high court of madras to place them before an appropriate bench for disposal in accordance with law. we are also of the opinion that since the parties have already undergone one round of litigation before the high court at ahmedabad and thereafter in these appeals before us, it is appropriate to request .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad1204(1); 39Ind.Cas.950
1. the respondents have sought to support the lower appellate court's order only as based on the application of somasundaram pillai of 6th december 1905. we cannot treat the order dismissing it as one recognizing the validity of somasundaram's assignment, or in view of that order, which became final, assume that his assignment was valid. we, moreover, do not regard it as immaterial whether the maker of the application relied on as extending time failed to obtain recognition of his right and we respectfully dissent from vasha kuthiyakath v. ashi kalakath 5 ind. cas. 120, relied on by respondents. holding that the application of 6th december 1905 is pot shown to have been made by a person entitled^ to make it, we decide that the present petition is put of time.2. we, therefore, allow the appeal against appellate order and dismiss execution petition no. 514 of 1909 with costs throughout.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008(133)ECC275; 2008(159)LC275(Madras); 2008(230)ELT225(Mad)
k. raviraja pandian, j.1. this batch of appeals is filed by the commissioner of customs, tuticorin, questioning the correctness of the order of the customs, excise, service tax appellate tribunal, south zone bench, chennai, dated, 08th july, 2005 made in final orders nos. 951 to 988 of 2005 whereby and wherein the tribunal has rendered a finding that the exports of shrimps/prawn made by the respondents were not exigible to levy of cess under section 3 of the agricultural produce cess act, 1940 read with item no. 7 in the schedule attached to that act, as the prawn and shrimps are different from fish for the purpose of agricultural produce cess act, 1940. the common questions of law that have arisen out of the order of the tribunal for the decision of this court in all these cases, as framed at the stage of admission, are:1. whether the tribunal failed to consider that the provision of the customs act or the explanatory notes on the harmonised systems of nomenclature (hsn) cannot be relied upon to determine the scope of the various entries under the schedule of the agricultural produce cess act, 1940?2.whether the tribunal is right in not considering the issues that there cannot be any distinction with regard to definition and classification of fish and prawns/shrimps under the provisions of the customs tariff act, 1975, the agricultural produce act, 1940 and the marine products export development authority act?2. as the facts in all these cases are similar, for the sake of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1904)14MLJ248
1. the officiating chief justice,--the petitioner preferred against the accused a complaint of theft in that the latter had removed a quantity of chanks from a portion of the bed of the sea on the coromandel coast, it being alleged by the petitioner that he was entitled to them as one claiming under the raja of ramnad and that the right to all chanks to be found in certain specified localities on the ramnad coast inclusive of the portion in question was, from time immemorial, vested exclusively in the holders of the ramnad zamindari. the head assistant magistrate of ramnad, after examining some only of the witnesses cited by the petitioner, dismissed the complaint on the analogy of decisions passed with reference to charges of theft of fishes in open waters.2. the questions which arise for determination in the present case are.1. (a). whether live chanks not actually seized but remaining free in their natural habitat in the bed of the sea are the subject of property?(b). whether a taking of them would not constitute theft even if they are the subject of property? (c). is 'possession' within the meaning of section 379 of the indian penal code predicablc in respect of them, with reference to persons entitled to them?2. if these questions are to be answered in the affirmative, whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the complainant is in law precluded from establishing an exclusive right to such of them as exist beyond a marine league from low water-mark?3: whether .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1984]150ITR619(Mad)
ramanujam, j.1. the following common question of law has been referred to this court by the income-tax appellate tribunal, madras bench, for its opinion : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of section 7 of the wealth-tax act, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the surplus lands belonging to the assessees under the tamil nadu land reforms (fixation of ceiling on land) act, 1961, should be valued only on the basis of the compensation receivable under the said tamil nadu act ?' 2. these references relate to the wealth-tax assessments made on various assessees determining the wealth as on april 13, 1971, the valuation date, at various figures. the dispute between the revenue and assessees relate to the determination of their farm wealth. during the assessment years, the assessees owned agricultural lands as detailed below : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------assessee retained lands surplus lands total acres------------------------------------------------------------------------------wet dry wet dry wet drylands lands lands lands lands lands------------------------------------------------------------------------------k s ranganatha 14-82 28-19 102-89 --- 117-71 28.19mudaliark s bakthavatsala 28-40 15-00 114-80 --- 143-20 15.00mudaliark s rajagopala 20-74 23-00 48-90 0.42 69-64 23-42mudaliark s srinivasan, minor 21-67 3-93 59-59 --- 81-25 3-93k s vasudava mudaliar .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1975Mad239
1. on the view we take of this case, it seems to us that this reference is unnecessary. apparently, the learned judge who made this reference thought that there was conflict of decisions on the question of oublic policy in allowing grant or acquisition, by ores-cription through long immemorial usage or custom, of fishery right in territorial waters in the sea coast of the state. on that question, in viresa v. tatayya, (1885) ilr 8 mad 467. decided by turner, c. j. and muttusami ayyar, j.. it was held that the right of the public to fish in tidal waters in british india might be curtailed by an exclusive privilege acouired by grant or prescription by certain persons within certain limits, and that such an exclusive privilege being an infringement of the general rights of the public, it could be acquired by a period of enjoyment which would suffice for the acouisition of an easement against the crown. that was a case of tidal river. in the district of krishna, there was a lake by name kolleru. whence a stream, uppu-teru. took its rise and flowed into the sea, being throughout its whole course tidal. at a distance of 6 to 8 miles from the head of upputeru, there was a village called kondangi which was the residence of the plaintiffs. at a carticular season, the plaintiffs threw nets across the river in the neighbourhood of their village and fished and they did so to prevent anv other person from placing similar nets at any point between their village and the place at which the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1980Mad14
1. the owner of premises no. 72, archbishop mathias street, madras, aggrieved by the order of the chief judge, court of small causes, madras (appellate authority under the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control act, 1960), who fixed the annual value of the premises at rs. 10920 has filed this civil revision petition. the main contention before me is that even though the property would fetch a rent of rs. 900 per month and an additional income of rs. 400 per month towards amenities provided in the premises earlier to 31-3-1973, yet after 31-3-1973, to wit, in june 1973, the premises were let out to parry and, co, for occupation by one of its officers, on a rent of rs. 600 per month and an additional charge of rs. 200 per month for amenities. the main contention of mr. gopinath learned counsel for the petitioner is that as there is proof of payment of such rent in the form of rent receipts and a lease deed inter se between the landlord and the tenant, there is no possibility of any speculation in this case and that the rent ought to be fixed on the basis of the actuals and not on mere assumptions or best judgment method. on the other hand, mr. palaniswami, learned counsel for the corporation, would refer to s. 100 of the city municipal corporation act, 1919, and would say that in certain circumstances the actuals paid by the tenant may not be a safe guide for arriving at the annual valuation of the premises, as other circumstances should also be taken into consideration .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(prayer: writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the communication of the 1st respondent dated 01.01.2010 in siet ref.no.6473/10/2010, and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to constitute a committee as per vishaka's judgment of the hon'ble supreme court to enquire into the allegations made against the respondents 3rd and 4th under the circumstances stated above.) 1. a practising advocate and joint secretary of siet, chennai, has challenged the communication of the 1st respondent dated 01.01.2010 in siet ref. no. 6473/10/2010 and sought for a direction to the first respondent to constitute a committee as per vishaka's judgment of the hon'ble supreme court to enquire into the allegations made against the respondents 3 and 4. 2. on the basis of the pleadings and the material on record, in the form of typed set of papers filed by the contesting parties, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties advanced arguments. decisions were also cited. 3. mr.g.rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is apracticing lawyer and hails from a reputed family and held various positions. she was also an additional advocate general, during the years 2004-2006 for the state of tamilnadu; chair-person of the state minorities commission between 1991-1996; chair-person of the tamilnadu wakf board between 2002-2006; .....
Tag this Judgment!