Chennai Court March 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Coimbatore and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ176
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar J., in W.P. No. 844 of 1952. That petition was filed by the respondent for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Government, dated 7th June, 1951, dismissing him form service. The petitioner joined the service of the Government in the Revenue Department about thirty years ago and he was a permanent member of that department in the Coimbatore District. He was Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Pollachi, from 14th March to 23rd June, 1949. As such he was engaged in the trial of a case of wrongful confinement and extortion. Two charges were framed against him and an inquiry Was directed to be made by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. The two charges were (1) that he demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as a bribe for acquitting the accused in the case before him, and (2) that he demanded and received illegal gratification of two sums of Rs. 500, each from one Gopalaswami' Goundar promising to ...
Braithwaite, Burn and Jessop Construction Co. Vs. Trustees of the Port ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ486
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 150 of 1955, on the file of this Court, against the judgment and decree of our learned brother, Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., dismissing that suit with costs.2. The facts were briefly these : In 1951 or so, the Government of India entertained the idea of extending the Madras Harbour by constructing an R.C. Jetty at North Quay and ore and coal berths, for importing coal and exporting iron and manganese ore, etc., at a cost of more than a crore of rupees. Mr. Srinivasan, the Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, prepared various plans and specifications from the year 1951, modifying them from time to time, as the works involved a huge investment and required very careful consideration regarding efficiency, economy, etc. He prepared those plans, including a plan, Exhibit D-1, dated 28th July, 1952, in consultation with Messrs. Rendel, Palmer and Pritton, London, a leading firm of consulting engineers, who have been consultin...
The State of Madras Vs. the Indian Coffee Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC522(Mad)
ORDER1. The turnover of which the liability to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act was in dispute, was Rs. 53,341-14-0. The findings of the Tribunal were : Messrs. Poisons Ltd., Bombay, was the buyer. The transaction was put through a commission agent who was authorised by Messrs. Poisons Ltd., as one of the registered wholesalers possessing a permit to bid at the coffee pool auction. Messrs. Poisons appointed the firm of Messrs. Ullal Deva Rau and Sons, commission agents of Mangalore, to function as the purchasing agents for coffee for Messrs. Poisons Ltd. The authorisation by Poisons Ltd., enabling Messrs. Ullal Deva Rau and Sons to bid at the auction was accepted by the Indian Coffee Board. In pursuance of this, Messrs. Ullal Deva Rau and Sons, as commission agents bid at the coffee pool auction on behalf of Messrs. Poisons Ltd. They took delivery of the goods. It is not denied that the goods were subsequently sent by the commission agents to Messrs. Poisons Ltd., Bombay.2. T...
Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs. T.S. Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ503
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This application is for the relief of amending paragraph 11 of the plaint in O.S. No. 488 of 1951 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, by substituting the words 'the plaintiff values the relief for account at Rs. 100 under Section 7, Clause 4 (iv)(b) of the Court-Fees Act.' This application is resisted on the ground that the point is covered by the decision in S.R.M.A.R. S.S.P. Santhappa Chettiar v. S.R.M.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar : AIR1955Mad682 . The question is whether this decision governs the facts of the present case. In the case cited above, no valuation was given for the purpose of Court-fee in the plaint. But contrary to that, in the case under review, the plaintiff gave valuation both for the purpose of jurisdiction as also for Court-fees. Besides this, he was also permitted in the lower Court to amend his plaint by inserting a further clause for relief for accounting between t he parties. At that time under some misapprehension, he did ...
Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Financ ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad110
Govinda Menon, J.1. In this seconcTappeal the appellant is the Unionof India, represented by the Secretary, Ministryof Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, andthe questions that arise are firstly whether a civilCourt has got jurisdiction to order refund ofamounts alleged to have been illegally collected as Central Excise tax on betel nuts and secondlyWhether on the facts of the case there has been suchillegal collection. The respondent filed O..S. No. 183 of 1947 In the Court of the District Munsif, Mangalore for refund of Rs. 502 stated to have been illegally collected as central excise tax on cured betel nuts. The trial court held that the suit was not maintainable and dismissed the same. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, South Kanara, came to a contrary conclusion and decreed the suit as prayed for and hence the present second appeal.2. Under the Indian Finance Act of 1944, the Government of India imposed an 'excise duty of two annas per pound on cured betel nuts produced...
The State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commerci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ313
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The assessee was a dealer as defined by the Madras General Sales Tax Act. He did not get himself registered as a dealer in the assessment year 1951-1952, under the provisions-of the Act. When the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the assessing authority, took steps to assess the assessee, on a provisional basis under the rules, for 1952-1953, the accounts of the assessee for 1951-1952 were also examined on 14th September, 1953. On 4th January, 1954, a notice was issued to the assessee to show cause why he should not be assessed on his turnover for the assessment year 1951-1952. The assessee did not submit any return even after the receipt of the notice. On 16th January, 1954, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer estimated the turnover of the assessee for 1951-1952 at Rs. 33,016-1-5, on the basis, of the entries in the assessee's books themselves and assessed him to pay a tax of Rs. 515-14-0. On appeal the Commercial Tax Officer confirmed the assessment. On further appe...
Union of India (Uoi), by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ455
Govinda Menon, J.1. In this Second Appeal the appellant is the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi and the questions that arise are firstly whether a Civil Court has got jurisdiction to order refund of amounts alleged to have been illegally collected as Central excise-tax on betel-nuts and secondly whether on the facts of the case there has been such illegal collection. The respondents filed O.S. No. 183 of 1947 in the Court of the District Munsif, Mangalore, for refund of Rs. 502, stated to have been illegally collected as Central excise-tax on cured betel-nuts. The trial Court held that the suit was not maintainable and dismissed the same. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, South Kanara, came to a contrary conclusion and decreed the suit as prayed for and hence the present Second Appeal.2. Under the Indian Finance Act of 1944 the Government of India imposed an excise duty of two annas per pound on cured betel-nuts pr...
Syed Shah Abdul Latif Mohideen Kadiri Sujjatha Shibahadulla Sahib Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1956
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ199
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in O.S. No. 26 of 1948.2. The suit was under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure: (1) for removing the first defendant from the trusteeship of the suit Pallivasal and from the possession and management of the trust properties; (2) for framing and settling a scheme suitable for the administration of the Pallivasal; (3) for declaring the alienations made by defendants 1 to 5 of the trust properties invalid and void and (4) for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 or anybody on their behalf from interfering in any manner with the trust and its management and its properties.3. The suit Pallivasal known as the Mohideen Andavar Pallivasal is a famous Dharga in Tirunelveli District. It is said that it owes its sanctity to a great Moham-madan Fakir by name Mohideen Jelani coming and performing his penance there. The first defendant is a descendant of...
State of Madras, Represented by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad681; [1956]7STC519(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J. 1. T. R. C. No. 54 of 1955 -- The assessee was a dealer as defined by the Madras General Sales-tax Act. He did not get himself registered as a dealer in the assessment year, 1951-52, under the provisions of the Act. When the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the assessing authority, took steps to assess the assessee, on a provisional basis under the rules, for 1952-53, the accounts-of the assessee for 1951-52, were also examined on 14-9-1953. On 4-1-1954 a notice was Issued to the assessee to show cause why he should not be assessed on his turnover for the assessment year 1951-52. The assessee did not submit any return-even after the receipt of the notice. On 16-1-1954 the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer estimated the turnover of the assessee for 1951-52 at Rs. 33,016-1-5 on the basis of the entries in the assessee's books themselves, and assessed him to pay a tax of Rs. 515-14-0. On Appeal the Commercial Tax Officer confirmed the assessment. On further appeal by the assesse...
Meenakshi Amma Vs. Kizhakke Valath Narayani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ235
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected appeals arising from the decrees and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in A.S. Nos 97 and 98 of 1950 modifying the/decrees and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Chowghat, in O.S. Nos. 299 and 127 of 1949.2. The facts are : Exhibit B-2 is a copy of the pattamchit executed by the defendants' predecessor Itteeri in favour of the then Karnavan of the plaintiffs family and a junior member. That document recites that the properties were already in the possession of Itteeri as a lessee and that he was taking Verumpattam lease with the liability to pay an annual rent of 4572 paras of paddy Exhibit B-3 is a possessory mortgage deed executed by the Karnavan and a junior member of the plaintiffs' tarwad to Itteeri's son Velu in respect of the properties. It recites that the properties were possessorily mortgaged to Velu for a sum of Rs. 250 It also recites that the properties were in the possession of Velu as a tenant The docum...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »