Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 12 results (0.031 seconds)

Jan 22 1980 (HC)

S.V. Venkatarama Reddiar Vs. Abdul Ghani Rowther and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-22-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Mad276

..... scarcity of accommodation both for residential and non-residential purposes, there is no concept of protection. to contents of urban immoveable property. we are of opinion that this is the rationale behind the distinction which the supreme court has pointed out between leases of agricultural lands and leases of urban immoveable property while dealing with the provisions of section 76(a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 1980 (HC)

Thanthi Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Madras

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-26-1980

Reported in : [1983]141ITR101(Mad)

..... has referred to above had no bearing. still so long as the supreme court has referred to the judgment of the andhra pradesh high court and also referred to the rationale behind the conclusion reached by that court, without expression any disapproval, we must proceed on the basis that the supreme court had approved of the reasoning being the decision of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1980 (HC)

E.K. Venkaimarbon Vs. Dakshinamoorthy

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-30-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ275

..... rank injustice. a legal system must therefore temper the rigour of legal procedure by reference to the realities of law practice, at least in deserving cases. this is the whole rationale behind section 5 of the limitation act. i do not see how it could have been the intention of the framers of the rent control act that parties should labour .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1980 (HC)

Devi Match Factory and ors. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise, Satt ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-21-1980

Reported in : 1983(12)ELT99(Mad)

v. ramaswami, j.1. the petitioners in this batch of writ petitioners are small scale match manufacturing units who are not given the benefit of notification gsr no. 99 of 1980-central excise, dated 19-6-1980. they have prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other writ or appropriate direction directing the respondents to give the benefit to them of the said notification without reference to the first and the second provisos to the said notification by reason of which the petitioners were not able to claim the concession. section 3 of the central excises and salt act, 1944 imposes excise duty on manufacture in respect of items mentioned in the first schedule to the act. matches are mentioned in item no. 38 of the schedule and the duty is leviable on the manufactured matches at the rates specified therein. in exercise of the rule-making powers under the act, the central government have made the central excise rules, 1944. rule 8 provides that the central government may, from time to time, by notification in the official gazette, exempt subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification any excisable goods from the whole or any part of duty leviable on such goods. in exercise of this power, the central government were prescribing from time to time lower rates than those prescribed under item 38. 2. prior to 1967, for the purpose of levy of excise duty, match factories were classified on the basis of their production during the financial year and matches produced in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1980 (HC)

Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Tamil Nadu-v Vs. Kamala Ganapathi Subraman ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-23-1980

Reported in : (1980)19CTR(Mad)209; [1981]127ITR175(Mad)

sethuraman, j.1. the appellate tribunal has referred to following question under s. 27(1) of the w.t. act : 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 35 of the wealth-tax act could not be invoked to apply the amended provisions of section 5(1)(viii) of the wealth-tax act for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 on the ground that the application of the said amended provision involved a debatable question of law ?' 2. the assessee, a lady, filed returns under the w.t. act for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70. before the wto, she claimed exemption on the value of certain jewellery, relying on the decision of the gujarat high court in cwt v. mrs. arundhati balkrishan : [1968]70itr203(guj) . the wto relied on another decision of the patna high court in pandit lakshmikant jha v. cwt : [1968]69itr545(patna) and held that the value of the jewellery was liable to be assessed. he took rs. 69,705 as the value of the jewellery in each of these assessment years. the assessee appealed to the aac and the contention before him was that the wto should not have included in the total wealth the value of the various ornaments and pieces of jewellery amounting to rs. 69,705 since the same would be exempt from taxation under s. 5(1)(viii) of the w.t. act as held in cwt v. mrs. arundhati balkrishan : [1968]70itr203(guj) . the aac agreed with the assessee's contention and pointed out thus : 'the details of the jewellery filed before me show .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1980 (HC)

The State of Tamil Nadu Through the Director of Fire Service Vs. M.N. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-22-1980

Reported in : (1981)1MLJ17

ramanujam, j.1. this appeal arises out of an award passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, madurai, in m. a. c. o. p. no. 160 of 1971 on its file.2. on 2nd december, 1970 at about 3. 45 p. m. one naina mohammed was going in his motor cycle, m. d. a. 7826 from east to west in tamil sangam road, madurai town, with three boys on the pillion of the motor cycle. at that stage, the madras fire service ambulance van, m. s. m. 2103 driven by one diraviam paul and owned by the state of tamil nadu through the director of fire services, came in the opposite direction and it hit against the motor cycle violently, with the result all the riders in the motor cycle were thrown away resulting in serious injuries. the injuries sustained by naina mohammed proved fatal later on at 3 a. m, on 3rd december, 1970 when he was carried to the hospital for treatment. alleging that the driver of the van drove it in a rash and negligent manner and that the accident was solely due to his driving the vehicle on the wrong side of the road, the widow and the children of the deceased naina mohammed filed the claim petition, claiming a compensation of rs. 60,000.3. the respondents in the claim petition, the driver of the van as well as the state of madras, resisted the claim contending that the van was driven in a slow and cautious manner on the correct side of the road, that the deceased naina mohammed came in a motor cycle at a high speed and on the wrong side of the road, that he drove tae motor .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 1980 (HC)

Regional Commissioner, Epf, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Vs. Management ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-01-1980

Reported in : (1982)ILLJ28Mad; (1982)ILLJ28Mad; (1981)2MLJ185

ismail, c.j. 1. this is an appeal against the order of varadarajan, j, dated 26th july, 1979, allowing writ petition no. 837 of 1977. the short question that arose before the learned judge was whether the special allowance paid by the employer to the employee as a result of an agreement entered into between the parties could be said to form part of dearness allowance of not for the purpose of calculating the contribution payable by the employer under the provisions of the employees provident fund and family pension fund act, 1952, section 2, clause (b) of the act defines' the term 'basic wages' 'basic wages' means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment - and which are paid or payable in cash to him but does not include - (i) the cash value of any food concession; (ii) any dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments by whatever name called paid to an employee on account of arise in the cost of living) house-rent allowance, overtime allowance, bonus, commission or any other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment : (iii) any presents made by the employer' 2. thus, it will be seen that this definition of the term 'basic wages' excluded a number of allowances grouped in sub-clause (ii) of sub-s. (b) of s. 2. however, under s. 6, dearness allowance and remaining allowances were taken into account for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1980 (HC)

A.V.K. Marimuthu Nadar and Brothers Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-13-1980

Reported in : [1981]47STC314(Mad)

ramaswami, j.1. the appellant, a dealer in grocery articles had reported total and taxable turnovers for the year 1970-71 at rs. 3,79,718.26 and rs. 2,16,223.58 respectively, in their form no. a-2 returns claiming exemption on a turnover of rs. 1,63,494.68 towards the sales turnover of foodgrains, second sales of oil-seeds and sale of exempted goods. on a surprise inspection made on 18th december, 1970, certain slips of papers relating to transactions of business of the assessee were recovered. after issuing notice and calling for explanations on the discrepancies found in the accounts as also on the turnover covered by the slips, the assessing officer rejected the accounts and proceeded to estimate the turnover. the slips recovered during inspection covered a period of 15 days and the sales suppressed as disclosed in the slips worked out to rs. 9,087. on the basis that the slips showed that the assessee should have resorted to suppression continuously during the earlier periods as well and adopting the sales suppression for a fortnight at rs. 9,087, estimated the omission at rs. 1,54,479, which is 16 times of rs. 9,087 plus rs. 9,087. this multiple of 16 times was taken by the assessing officer on the ground that prior to the period covered by the slips there were 16 fortnights from the beginning of the assessment year. this estimated sales suppression was added to the turnover disclosed in the returns and the assessment was made. the assessing officer also levied a penalty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1980 (HC)

G.N. Venkataswamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporat ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-07-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Mad318; (1981)2MLJ254

ismail, c.j.this batch of writ petitions raises common questions regarding the validity of section 52-a of the tamil nadu revenue recovery act (i of 1864) as amended by the tamil nadu act 12 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the act. the said section 52-a reads as follows:-'52-a, recovery of sumc due to the tamil nadu agro-industries corporation and another. corporations etc:- without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken, all loans granted and all advances made to any person- (i) by the tamil nadu agro industries corporation limited. madras or(ii) by such other corporation (the shares of which have been contributed, underwritten or guaranteed by the state government) as may be notified in this behalf by the state government in the tamil nadu government gazette, or(iii) from out of the amalgamated tamil nadu shares of the post war services reconstruction fund and the special fund for reconstruction and rehabilitation of ex-servicemen, together with interest on such loans and advances, and all sums due to the corporations mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) may be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of this act.' pursuant to section 52-a (u) the government of tamil nadu have from time issued notifications, notifying the corporations such as the state industries promotion corporation of tamil nadu ltd. the tamil nadu small industries development corporation ltd., the tamil nadu industrial investment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 1980 (HC)

Dunlop India Ltd. and India Tyre and Rubber Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-07-1980

Reported in : 1981LC537D(Madras)

orderpadmanabhan, j.1. these writ petitions coming on for hearing on 29th day of october 1980 and monday 3rd day of november, 1980 and on this day upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the high court, dated 29.3.1978 and 3.4.1878 and made herein, and the counter affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the order in o.c. no. 382/78, o.c. no. 311/78, o.c. no. 383/78, o.c. no. 385/78, dated 23.3. 1978 and 27.3.1978 on the file of 2nd respondent herein and comprised in the return of the said respondent to the writs made by the high court, and upon hearing the arguments of mr. v.p. raman for mr. v. manivannan, advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of mr. k.n. balasubramanyan, additional central govt. standing counsel on behalf of the respondent in all the petitions the court made the following order:2. m/s. dunlop india limited, the petitioner herein, is a company incorporated under the companies act with its registered office at calcutta. the petitioners factory is situated in madras. it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobile tyres and other rubber products. the pattern under which the petitioner markets its products is as follows. there is no sale of its products at the factory gate. there are about 2500 sales depots spread through out the length of india. all the products are transferred to the various depots. the goods are sold at these depots at a price called the billing price .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //