Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1988 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.062 seconds)

Jan 13 1988 (HC)

M.V. Valliappan and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-13-1988

Reported in : (1988)67CTR(Mad)289; [1988]170ITR238(Mad)

..... december 31, 1978, if taxable, will be taxed only in the hands of the said individual member, and not in the hands of the hindu undivided family. there is no rationale behind treating the two sets of the hindu undivided families, one, which was an assessee prior to the assessment year 1980-81, and the other which is not an assessee ..... relevant only for the assessment 1979-80 is not affected by section 171(9) clearly, in our view, indicates that the choice of the date december 31, 1978, has no rationale behind it and appears to us to be clearly arbitrary. 53. though a certain amount of flexibility with regard to a taxing provision is permissible, as pointed out by the ..... for the assessment year 1980-81 which would be hit by section 171(9). this indicates that having regard to the same year of assessment 1980-81, there is no rationale behind the hostile treatment to be given to certain partitions relevant for the assessment year as compared with certain other partitions which are also relevant for the said assessment year ..... validity of section 171(9) is concerned, it is challenged on the ground of violation of article 14 of the constitution of india on the footing that there is no rationale behind fixing december 31, 1978, as the date after which all partial partitions will either not be recognised or even if they were recognised, they were directed to be derecognised .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1988 (HC)

Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Its Commissioner and Secretar ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-14-1988

Reported in : (1989)2MLJ141

..... not because the judicial decision was erroneous. at this juncture, correctly he hastens to point out that the impugned act is not a validating act at all, and therefore, the rationale in the decisions relied upon by learned advocate-general could have no relevance.46. he would then refer to the decision of the division bench of this court in krishnaraju .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1988 (HC)

M.O.H. Aslam Vs. M.O.H Uduman and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-17-1988

Reported in : (1989)2MLJ172

..... reported in abbashai v. r.g. shah : air1988bom187 , but the situation which arose in that case has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of this case, and therefore, the rationale adopted therein cannot be of any guidance, in interpreting the terms of exhibit b.1.23. in the decision reported in iqbalnath v. rameshwamath : air1976bom405 , it was held that, any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 1988 (HC)

Thanthi Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-22-1988

Reported in : (1989)75CTR(Mad)1; [1989]177ITR307(Mad)

mohan, j.1. all these matters raise one and the same question of law. therefore, we propose to deal with them under a common judgment. 2. the facts leading to the writ appeals are as follows: the appellant is a trust know as thanthi trust. this was created under an instrument of declaration of trust dated march 1, 1954. the purpose of the trust was to found daily thanthi newspaper as an organ of educated public opinion for the tamil reading public to disseminate news and ventilate opinions on all matters of public interest through the said newspaper. the appellant trust is an assessee on the file of the respondent. its permanent account number is p.a. no. 47,005-az-5117. the trust had been claiming exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the indian income-tax act, 1922, from the assessment year 1955-56 onwards in respect of its income. though there were several proceedings in relation to the claim for exemption, ultimately, the income-tax officer upheld the appellant's claim for exemption for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1961-62. after the coming into force of the income-tax act, 1961, exemption was gain claimed by the appellant under section 11 of this act on the basis of the original trust deed. the claim for exemption was upheld by the concerned income-tax officer for the year 1962-63 to 1967-68. for the assessment year 1968-69, the income-tax officer issued a notice under section 143(2) of the act calling upon the appellant to produce its books of account relevant to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 1988 (HC)

A.V. Lakshminarayanan Vs. the Special Officer, Joint Registrar of Co-o ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-07-1988

Reported in : (1988)1MLJ330

ordersivasubramanian, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to accept the highest tender of the petitioner and to give the right to purchase the bagasse from the 2nd respondent sugar mill for the sugarcane for the year 1987-88.2. the material averments found in the petitioner's affidavit are as follows:the first respondent published an advertisement in daily thanthi, tamil newspaper dated 24.12.1987, calling for sealed tenders on or before 4.1.1988 from intending purchasers of bagasse from the sugar-mills in the state of tamil nadu. in accordance with' the said publication, the petitioner submitted his sealed tender quoting his price in accordance with the procedures and rules for the purchase of bagasse. the total quantity of bagasse anticipated to be available for sale in the 2nd respondent sugar mills was 5,000 tonnes. the following persons submitted the tenders for the purchase of baled and loose bagasse from the 2nd respondent sugar mills at the prices indicated against each: baled loose (price per m/t.) rs. rs.1. amaravathi sri venkatteswara paper mills 150/- nil.2. pondicherry paper mills limited-southern 180/- 140/-3. agrifurance industries limited, madras 150/- ...4. sekhar agencies (3rd respondent herein) 161/- 125/-5. a.v. lakshminarayanan (petitioner herein) 191/- 150.506. r. ramamurthy 190/- 112.507. manavalan 189/- 136.458. hindusthan paper ltd. 200/- ...these sealed tenders .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1988 (HC)

P. Annamalai Vs. the Collector of Ramanathapuram and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-25-1988

Reported in : (1988)2MLJ398

orderswamikkannu, j.1. r. annamalai of veppankulam (via) kallal, ramnad district is the petitioner in 1720 of 1983. the collector of ramnad at madurai; the special tahsildar, adhi dravidar welfare, devakottai; and the secretary to government of tamil nadu, social welfare, madras are the respondents in 1720 of 1983. this writ petition is for quashing the order of the second respondent comprised in rco-a/1469-82, dated 20.1.1983 and the 4(1) notification of the third respondent in 2819, s.w.d. dated 24-11-1982, published at page 25 of the extraordinary issue of the tamil nadu government gazette dated 8-12-1982, with respect to the acquisition of the lands of the petitioner in 126/1c and 126/78 of veppankulam village, karaikudi taluk, ramnad district.2. r. krishnamurthi, theli village, villupuram taluk, south arcot district is the petitioner in 2199 of 1983. the state of tamil nadu represented by under secretary to government, social welfare department, government of tamil nadu madras-9 and the special tahsildar, adhi dravidar welfare, villupuram taluk, south arcot district are the respondents in this writ petition. this writ petition is for queshing the proceedings relating to 2094, social welfare department, dated 30.8.1982, published as notification no. 11(2) s.w.5234/82 at pages 45 and 46 of part ii, supplement section ii of tamil nadu government gazette dated 29-9-1982 as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 23 1988 (HC)

C.K.N. Gounder Alias C.K.N. Karupanna Gounder S/O Nachimuthur Gounder ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-23-1988

Reported in : (1989)1MLJ496

ordersrinivasan, j.1. this revision petition is against an order dismissing the petitioner's application under section 5 of the limitation act for condonation of delay of 8 months and 19 days in filing a petition under order 9, rule 13, code of civil procedure, to set aside the ex parte decree passed against the petitioner on 9.8.1985 in o.s. no. 45 of 1985 on the file of sub court, karur.2. the suit filed by the respondent is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 22.8.1984 under which the consideration was fixed at rs. 70,000 out of which a sum of rs. 55,000 was paid as advance on the date of the agreement. alleging that the defendant was evading performance of the agreement and offering to deposit the balance of sale price into court, the plaintiff instituted the suit on 16.3.1985. the address of the defendant was given in the plaint as pattanalvar lane, market street, kakkinada, andhra pradesh. the summons sent to kakkinada by post returned with the endorsement that the petitioner had left. the second summons was sent to manmari village and the process server affixed the summons on the outer door of the house of the petitioner on learning that he had left for trichy. that was on 20.6.1985. the court ordered substituted service by tom-tom in the village and affixture in the court notice board as well as in the village chavady. the process server made an endorsement that substituted service was effected as directed by the court on 28.7.1985. the court accepted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 1988 (HC)

K. Muthiyan Nadar Vs. R. Vijayarani and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-26-1988

Reported in : (1989)2MLJ436

ordersrinivasan, j.1. on september 28, 1972, the subordinate judge of padmanabhapuram passed a decree in o.s. no. 85 of 1971 on his file in favour of the father of the respondents herein against the petitioner herein for certain sum of money. the decree was amended by order dated 8.10.1974 made in i.a. no. 331 of 1974 and after amendment, the decree directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of rs. 3,200 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of decre till date of realisation along with proportionate cost of rs. 652-25 and the petitioner was granted six months time to pay the amount. the petitioner not having complied with the decree, the decree-holder set the execution proceedings in motion in e.p. no. 28 of 1979. the petitioner herein claimed to be entitled to the benefits of the tamil nadu act 31 of 1976 on the footing that he is a 'small farmer' as defined by the act. the executing court, viz., the subordinate judge, kuzhithurai, negatived his claim and ordered execution by order dated 30.10.1979. the petitioner herein filed c.r.p. no. 2829 of 1979 in this court against that order. during the pendency of the revision petition, the decree-holder died and his children, the respondents herein, were brought on record as his legal representatives. by order dated 17-6-1985, this court set aside the order of the executing court and remanded the matter to the subordinate judge, kuzhithurai for deciding the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of tamil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 1988 (HC)

S.N. Mohideen Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-25-1988

Reported in : 1989(22)ECC226; 1989(39)ELT376(Mad)

1. the petitioner is the same in all the writ petitions which are disposed of by this common order. 2. the case of the petitioner is that he is a dealer of hand-made biris and he is also a manufacturer in hand-made biris. - as a dealer, he used to purchase hand-made biris manufactured by others, affix his brand name, namely 'madras munim beedies' and sell the same. he states that on all the biris, namely on the biris purchased from the other manufacturers, the petitioner used to affix the brand label, namely 'madras munim beedies'. the petitioner claims that after the stage of manufacture was over and after the biris were made fit for consumption by the public without any further process at all, the petitioner used to affix the brand label, namely 'madras munim beedies'. 3. the first schedule to the central excises and salt act, 1944 in tariff in item 4 ii 3 reads as follows :- '(i) biris is the manufacture of which any process has been conducted with the aid of machine operated with or without aid of power; and (ii) other biris'. by notification no. 19/75-c.e., dated 1.3.1975 made in exercise of power conferred by rule 8 of the central excise rules, the central government exempted other biris falling under item no. 4ii(3)(ii) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to the proviso contained therein. by a subsequent notification no. 32/79 exemption was also granted for other biris subject to the provisos contained therein. both these provisos state that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1988 (HC)

M. Manickam Asari Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-24-1988

Reported in : (1988)2MLJ246

ratnam, j.1. the defendant in 389 of 1976, district munsif's court, madurai town, is the appellant in this second appeal. the suit property, bearing door nos. 47 and 48 and situate in 1387 in madurai town, measures 28' east to west and 251/2 feet north to south, inclusive of a shed measuring north to south 191/2' and east to west 9'. on 27-12-1947, chidambaram asari and his wife, rathinammal, who owned the suit property, leased out to the appellant a vacant site for a period of three years measuring 9' east to west and 27' north to south from out of a larger extent of the property with common pathway rights and rights in a well. subsequently, on 16-12-1951, rathinammal leased out to the appellant the same property, viz., 9' x 27' for a further period of three years. on the death of rathinammal, her daughter, the 1st respondent herein, became entitled to her properties, and on 30-8-1954, the ist respondent leased out to the appellant the very same property, viz., 9' x 27' for a period of 5 years from the first of marghazhi of jaya tamil year. thereafter, on 27-11-1957, the 1st respondent borrowed a sum of rs. 1,850 from the appellant and executed an usufructuary mortgage deed under ex.a-1, dt. 27-11-1957 on her behalf and as guardian of her then minor son. the property usufructuarily mortgaged comprised of the entire site measuring east to west 28' and north to south 251/2' and the shed thereon. pursuant to the usufructuary mortgage executed by the 1st .....

Tag this Judgment!

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