Chennai Court September 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 Public Prosecutor Vs. Ebrahim SarfuddIn and Company and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC9(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondents by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act.2. For 1953-54 the respondents submitted a return for Rs. 1,88,000 and odd, but the authorities after checking found that the turnover was Rs. 3,25,000 and odd. In this estimate of the gross turnover the authorities have included the sales tax recovered by the respondents which apparently was omitted in the return submitted by the respondents. By a decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and Sons (1954) 2 M.L.J. 151, it was held that the turnover of a dealer does not include the sales tax that are collected on the goods sold by the dealer. But the authorities on the basis that the sales tax is also included in the turnover have been collecting tax on the total turnover. By the decision of this Court a situation was created by which portion ...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Ebrahim SarfuddIn and Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1956
Reported in: 1957CriLJ257
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondents by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 15 (b) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act.2. For 1953-54 the respondents submitted a return for Rs. 1,88,000, and odd, but the authorities after checking found that the turnover was Rs. 3,25,000, and odd. In this estimate of the gross turnover the authorities have included the sales-tax recovered by the respondents which apparently was omitted in the return submitted by the respondents. By a decision of this Court in Deputy Commr. of Commercial Taxes v. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and Sons, : AIR1954Mad856 , it was held that the turnover of a dealer does not include the sales tax that are collected on the goods sold by dealer.But the authorities on the basis that the sales tax is also included in the turnover have been collecting tax on the total turnover. By the decision of this Court a situation was created by which portion of the tax ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Ebrahim SarfuddIn and Company Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ570
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondents by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 15(b) of the Madras General Sales-Tax Act.2. For 1953-54 the respondents submitted a return for Rs. 1,88,000 and odd but the authorities after checking found that the turnover was Rs. 3,25,000 and odd. In this estimate of the gross turnover the authorities have included the sales-tax recovered by the respondents which apparently was omitted in the return submitted by the respondents. By a decision of this Court in Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and Sons (1954) 2 M.L.J. 151, it was held that the turnover of a dealer does not include the sales-tax that are collected on the goods sold by dealer. But the authorities on the basis that the sales-tax is also included in the turnover have been collecting tax on the total turnover. By the decision of this Court a situation was created by which portion of the ta...
Hindustan Investment and Financial Trust Ltd. Vs. C.S. Sastry (Volunta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad262
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Ramaswami Goundar J. on an application for certain directions taken out by the Voluntary liquidator of a company in liquidation called the Chicacole Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., and related to the rights of preference share-holders in the company, whether they are entitled 'o be paid arrears of dividend from and out of the assets of the company. The relevant Article in the Articles of Association of the Company is Article 16 which runs thus:'(a) The preference shares shall carry a divident of six per cent subject to deduction of Income-tax at source. Such dividends are calculable from the date of allotment on the amounts received by the company. (b) The preference shares shall carry the right to preferential repayment of capital in priority to the ordinary shareholders in the event of winding up, voluntary liquidation Or amalgamation with any other company for the amount paid up on the preference shares, including all di...
In Re: T.M.R. Abdul Khader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad46; (1956)IILLJ486Mad
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. There is no substance in this appeal. The first point urged by the appellant's learned counsel was that there was no reasonable opportunity accorded to him, after he had been served with ft 'show cause' notice and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution were therefore infringed. The appellant was only suspended from service for one year. We agree with the learned Judge, Rajagopalan, J. against whose order the appeal is preferred; that a mere suspension would not fall within Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The decision of the Nagpur High Court in Provincial Govt. C. P. and Berar v. Shamsul Hussain , was relied upon in which it is observed that a mere suspension may amount to reduction in rank. With great respect to the learned Judges, we do not agree with this! interpretation. A mere suspension does not involve necessarily a reduction in rank. 2. The next point taken is that the appellant was not given an opportunity of establishing his defence. There w...
T.S. Srinivasa Rao, Attorney Agent Vs. State of Madras, by Collector a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ595
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner was the holder of the zamindari estate, known as the Pudur Zamin in Tirunelveli District. Under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the Act that estate vested in the Government with effect from 3rd January, 1951, the notified date. Vagaikulam was one of the villages included in that estate. It was common ground, that it was an uninhabited village, though for how long it had remained uninhabited there was no evidence to show. It was also common ground that the entire extent of the village of about 71 acres 42 cents always belonged to the petitioner. No ryot held any land in that village. Included in this extent of 71.42 acres was a tank (Kanmoi) which measured 32.33 acres. The ayacut of that tank measured 37.18 acres, and the petitioner cultivated the whole of that ayacut as part of the private lands of the landholder in that estate.2. After the estate had been a...
State of Madras, Represented by Dist. Collector of West Tanjore Vs. Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad361
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These are two writ appeals from the judgment of Rajagopalan J. quashing the proceedings takenby the State of Madras under Madras Act 50 of1947, with regard to the respondent's lands inTanjore District. The Government proceeded onthe basis that these lands fell within the definitionof an estate contained in Section 3(2) of the Estates LandAct, took, action under Act 30 of 1947, and reduced the rents payable by the tenants oh theselands.Rajagopalan. J, before whom the petition of the respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution came on for disposal, dealt with the question of fact whether the lands did or did not form an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) of the Estates Land Act, and in arriving at a conclusion on this question relied upon the statements in affidavit filed in the case and certain documents which were produced by the Government.The tenants who were vitally interested were represented by an advocate. The learned Judge on a consideration of so...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›