Chennai Court April 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.
Tools and Machineries Ltd. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad22; (1955)2MLJ397; [1956]7STC740(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The assessee is the petitioner in this tax revision case. It is a private limited liability company which was carrying on business in auto-parts and accessories. During the assessment year 1952-53, with which this petition is concerned, the assessee returned its turnover as nil.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, however, estimated its turnover at Rs. 96713-8-0 this being the amount for which the goods held by it including its furniture were handed over to a proprietary consent by name Associated Trades. This transaction took place on 2-4-1932.2. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was two-fold. The first was that as the stock in trade which the assessee had and which was sold to the Associated Trades was in discharge of liabilities due to this concern it was not a sale by a dealer in the course of his business and therefore did not attract the tax liability as not being a sale within the definition under the...
In Re: Palani Goundan Alias Thambianna Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ273
ORDERRamaswami Gounder, J.1. The accused has preferred this revision to this Court against his conviction under Section 4-A of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, both by the Sub-Magistrate, Tiruchengode, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari, in appeal, and sentence of a fine of Rs. 100. That section lays down that whoever is found in a state of intoxication in any public place...shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or with both. While the Legislature has made intoxication in a public place a punishable offence, it is somewhat surprising that it has not taken care to define what intoxication means. In the absence of any statutory definition, we will have to adopt its ordinary etymological meaning, namely, a condition produced by excessive use of alcoholic stimulants, as defined in Dorland's American Medical Dictionary. It will be seen that Section 4(1)(j) also provides that whoever consumes...liquor or any in...
Thangachi Nachial and anr. Vs. Ahmed HussaIn Malumiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad194
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayuram in O. S. No. 77 of 1951.2. The facts are:- Muhammad Abdul Kadir Ma-lumiar created a private trust on.19-11-1918 i.e. Bab-sequent to the Mussalman Wakf Validations Act of 1913. The Wakf comprised of Ac.12.80 cents of land near Nagore, portion of a house bearing door No. 3 in Nagore Town, and cooking vessels etc., men. tioned in Wakf Deed. The trust was created for the purpose of meeting the expenses of a Mouluth to be performed in the month of Rablulavul when 40 marakkals of rice should be cooked and distributed to relatives, friends and the poor and another Mouluth to be performed in the Mohurram month of each year in the Hussainia Moulath. khana belonging to the settlor when 25 marakkals of rice have to be cooked and distributed to poor muslims.This poor feeding is a valid object of a Wakf: Baillie (1) 550; Hidaya 240; Fatma Bibi v. Advocate-General of Bombay, ILR 6 ...
Tools and Machineries Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ397
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The assessee is the petitioner in this tax revision case. It is a private limited liability company which was carrying on business in auto-parts and accessories. During the assessment year 1952-53 with which this petition is concerned, the assessee returned its turnover as nil. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer however estimated its turnover at Rs. 96,713-8-0 this being the amount for which the goods held by it including its furniture were handed over to a proprietary concern by name Associated Trades. This transaction took place on 2nd April, 1952.2. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was twofold. The first was that as the stock in trade which the assessee had and which was sold to the Associated Trades was in discharge of liabilities due to this concern it was not a sale by a dealer in the course of his business and therefore did not attract the tax liability as not being a sale within the definition...
In Re: Palani Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad546; 1957CriLJ976
1. I agree and I have nothing to add.Ramaswami Goundar, J.2. The accused has preferred this revision to this Court against his conviction under Section 4-A of the Madras ' Prohibition Act, 1'937, both by the Sub-Magistrate, Trichengode and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari, in appeal, and sentence of a fine of Rs. 100. That section lays down that whoever is found in a state of intoxication in any public place.....shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months* or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000 or with both. While the legislature has made intoxication in a public place a punishable offence, it is somewhat surprising that it has not taken care to define what intoxication means.In the absence of any statutory definition, we will have to adopt its ordinary etymological meaning, namely, a condition produced by excessive use of alcoholic stimulants, as defined in Dorland's American Medical Dictionary. It will be seen that Section 4 (1) (j) also provides that ...
Pioneer Motors Ltd., Tirunelveli and ors. Vs. O.M.A. Majeed, Mirania M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad48
1. These several writ petitions are by a number of motor transport operators who are aggrieved by the orders of the State Government, purporting to be under Section 64-A, Motor Vehicles Act, and call in question the legality of each of the orders of the State Government, disposing of such revision petitions under Section 64-A of the Act which had been filed before then. In these writ applications the orders of Government fire impugned on various grounds, but a ground common to all these relates to the effect of Act 39 of 1954 upon the jurisdiction of Government to pass the orders now challenged, and we propose to deal with this point alone.2. Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act empowered the State Government"of its own motion or on application made to it to call for records of any order passed or proceeding taken under Chapter IV by any authority or officer subordinate to it and to pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit."Under this provision a large number of such rev...
R.A. Natarajan Vs. the Regional Transport Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ347
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a transport operator. He held a stage carriage permit on the route Arni-Vellore. His bus MDU 3065 was plying on this route. While so on 12th January, 1954, early in the morning a Sub-Inspector of Motor Vehicles Taxes stopped the vehicle and made a check of the number of passengers seated in the bus. The bus was permitted to carry a total of 34 passengers but on checking the bus, the Sub-Inspector found that there were 44 passengers. He transmitted this information to the Regional Transport Authority, Vellore and the Secretary of the Transport Authority namely. The Regional Transport Officer issued a notice to the petitioner on 5th February, 1954, charging him with overloading and intimating to him that if the charges were not satisfactorily explained, the permit would be cancelled. The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the overloading. This explanation, however, was not accepted and the Regional Transport Officer d...
Pioneer Motors Ltd. Vs. O.M.A. Majeed Mirania Motor Service and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ430
ORDER1. These several writ petitions are by a number of motor transport operators who are aggrieved by the orders of the State Government, purporting to be under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and call in question the legality of each of the orders of the State Government, disposing of such revision petitions under Section 64-A of the Act which had been filed before them. In these writ applications the orders of Government are impugned on various grounds, but a ground common to all these relates to the effect of Act XXXIX of 1954 upon the jurisdiction of Government to pass the orders now challenged, and we propose to deal with this point alone.2. Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act empowered the State Governmentof its own motion or on application made to it to call for records of any order passed or proceeding taken under Chapter IV by any authority or officer subordinate to it and to pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.3. Under this provision a large numb...
Kuppuswami (P.S.) Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ165Mad
Rajagopalan, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother. Govdinda Menon, J. in W. P. No. 717 of 1952.2. The appellant was a motor vehicles inspector under the Government of Madras Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him, and the tribunal constituted under the Madras Civil Services Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal Rules, 1948, conducted the enquiry. Five charges were framed against him. The tribunal held that three of the charges so framed had not been proved. The tribunal further held the following two charges proved:(i) on or about 4 October 1948 the appellant received Rs. 40 for issuing the fitness certificate for M.D.U. 2321, lorry belonging' to V. Somasundaram Odayar of Kottayur, and(ii) in April 1949 the appellant received Rs. 40 for issuing fitness certificate for the same lorry. A copy of the report of the tribunal was sent to the appellant by the Government, and he was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellan...
P.S. Kuppuswami Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ352
Rajagopalan, J.1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of our learned brother Govinda Menon, J., in Writ Petition No. 717 of 1952.2. The appellant was a Motor Vehicles Inspector under the Government of Madras. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him, and the Tribunal constituted under the Madras Civil Services Disciplinary Tribunal Rules, 1948, conducted the enquiry. Five charges were framed against him. The Tribunal held that three of the charges so framed had not been proved. The Tribunal further held the following two charges proved: (i) on or about 4th October, 1948, the appellant received Rs. 40, for issuing the fitness certificate for M.D.U. 2321, lorry belonging to V. Somasundaram Odayar of Kottayur and (ii) in April, 1949, the appellant received Rs. 40, for issuing fitness certificate for the same lorry. A copy of the report of the Tribunal was sent to the appellant by the Government, and he was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »