Chennai Court February 1957 Judgments
The State of Madras Represented by the District Collector Vs. R.M.K. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ270
Ramaswami Gounder, J.1. This Second Appeal is filed by the State of Madras against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below decreeing a suit for a declaration that the assessment of sales tax under the head ' railway charges' or freight is illegal and for a refund of a sum of Rs. 52-15-3.2. The plaintiff is a piece-goods merchant carrying on business in Tirunelveli. His business consisted in purchasing goods from Bombay and Ahmedabad and selling them in retail at Tirunelveli. For the year 1949-1950, his gross turnover was nearly ten lakhs of rupees; but in respect of the turnover to the extent of Rs. 3,389-11-2 representing the railway charges or freight, he objected to the assessment, and it was in respect of that turnover that the suit for refund of the tax of Rs. 52-15-3 was filed.3. The claim was made under Rule 5(1)(g) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, which provides that the tax under Section 3 of the notification under Section 6(1) shall ...
Tag this Judgment!A. St. Arunachalam Pillai and anr. Vs. the Chairman, Central Governmen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad614; (1957)IILLJ682Mad; (1957)2MLJ26
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. W. P. No. 940 of 1956: This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras. It is necessary to state a few facts to understand the point raised. One Shanmugha Motor Service, Tiruchirapalli, was being conducted by one A. SM. Kandaswami who was carrying on business as a motor transport operator.This concern had ten buses and two spare buses and was employing a number of workmen stated to be about 55. There was a dispute between this Concern and the workers in respect of the payment of bonus for the years 1949 to 1951 and also as regards the terms of service of some drivers and conductors employed by this establishment. The matter in dispute was referred by the local Government to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, and the Tribunal passed an award on 3-3-1952 which was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 28-5-1952. The award was substantially in favour of th...
Tag this Judgment!A. St. Arunachalam Pillai and anr. Vs. Chairman, Central Government In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ283
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. W.P. No. 1940 of 1956. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Madras. It is necessary to state a few facts to understand the point raised. One Shanmugha Motor Service, Tiruchirapalli, was being conducted by one A. SM. Kandaswami who was carrying on business as a motor transport operator. This concern had 10 buses and 2 spare buses and was employing a number of workmen stated to be about 55. There was a dispute between this concern and the workers in respect of the payment of bonus for the years 1949 to 1951 and also as regards the terms of service of some drivers and conductors employed by this establishment. The matter in dispute was referred by the Local Government to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, and the Tribunal passed an award on 3rd May, 1952, which was published in the Fort. St, George Gazette on 28th May, 1953. The award was substantially in fa...
Tag this Judgment!P.K.N. Abdul Mazid Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad551
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner has had a rice mill for over 20 years in Kottaguri village, Tiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram Dt. After the introduction of the scheme of licensing rice mills under the Madras Act 29 of 1949, the petitioner obtained the requisite licence. The licensing is now regulated by the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1955.2. On 1-8-1955, the third respondent Bala-krishnan Chettiar applied to the Collector for ,a licence to work a rice mill of his in Kotagudi village. It was common ground that the site selected by him for his mill was only about 40 feet away from the petitioner's mill. The petitioner lodged his objection to the grant of the licence sought by the third respondent. On 9-11-1955 the Collector rejected the application that had been preferred by by the third respondent.3. On 3-1-1956 the third respondent preferred what purported to be an appeal to the Government against the order of the Collector dated 9-11-1955 refusing the licence for which t...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Menon Vs. House Rent Controller, Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad608
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The legality of the Order of that House Rent Controller, Coimbatore, directing' the petitioner to vacate the, premises of which he has been in occupation as a usufructuary mortgagee is the subject matter of this writ petition.2. These proceedings relate to a house hearing door No. 4/2-B Desaba Colony, Race Course, Coimbatore. The petitioner is a retired Assistant Conservator of Forests who was originally residing at Salem His mother who was at Coimbatore fell 111 and the petitioner decided to move to Coimbatore to stay with his mother. Consequently the petitioner obtained a usufructuary mortgage of the premises now In dispute from the owner on 3-2-1956. At that time, toe house was fn the occupation as a tenant of one V. Chenthamaral Kannan, an advocate of Coimbatore.3. After obtaining the mortgage the petitioner filed a petition under Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease arid Bent Control) Act, 1949, for the eviction of the tenant from the house on th...
Tag this Judgment!P.K.N. Abdul Mazid Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ1
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner has had a rice mill for over 20 years in Kottagudi village, Tiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. After the introduction of the scheme of licensing rice mills under the Madras Act (XXIX of 1949), the petitioner obtained the requisite licence. The licensing is now regulated by the Madras Rice Mills Licensing Order, 1955.2. On 1st August, 1955, the third respondent Balakrishnan Chettiar applied to the Collector for a license to work a rice mill of his in Kottagudi Village. It was common ground that the site selected by him for his mill was only about 40 feet away from the petitioner's mill. The petitioner lodged his objection to the grant of the license sought by the third respondent. On 9th January, 1955, the Collector rejected the application that had been preferred by the third respondent.3. On 3rd January, 1956, the third respondent preferred what purported to be an appeal to the Government against the order of the Collector, dated 9th Nove...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi Renga Appaswami Naidu Vs. Subramania Appaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ119
Rajagopalan, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Mathurai, in O.P. No. 3 of 1953 on 1ts file. The appellant was the landholder of Illayarasanendal zamindari, an impartible estate. Appaneri was one of the villages that formed part of that zamindari. When the zamindari vested in the Government under Madras Act XXVI of 1948, the Government deposited Rs. 19,743 as advance compensation for Appaneri village. The claim by the petitioners in O.P. No. 3 of 1953 for payment out to them of a portion of that amount on the ground that they were also landholders of the estate entitled to a share in the compensation amount was allowed by the Tribunal, overruling the objections of the appellant.2. The following genealogical table should help to understand the relationship between the parties: Venkataranga Appaswami Naidu | ---------------------------------------------- | | | Kasturi Renga Appaswami Appaswami Venkatachalaswami (Applt.) | | --------------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Govindammal Vs. Marimuthu Maistry and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Mad7; (1958)IIMLJ34
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in O. S. No 40 of 1952.2. The facts are: The plaintiff Govindammal filed two suits in the Chidambaram District Munsif's Court, O. S. Nos.151 of 1950 and 180 of 1950, relating to two sets of properties against Marimuthu Maistri, the first defendant, and others. After the said suits came on for trial, the parties reported a settlement of both the suits. An endorsement was made on the plaints in both the suits whereby the parties agreed to allow the plaintiff to have a decree in respect of the properties in O. S. No. 180 of 1950 and the claim in O. S. No. 151 of 1950 was allowed to be dismissed without costs.The plaintiff's father has attested the endorsements, as he was admittedly looking after her interests. The vakil for the plaintiff also signed the endorsements and consented to the dismissal of O. S. No. 151 of 1950. On the ground that the vakil had no authorisation t...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Sreemanavikraman Raja, ZamorIn Rajah of Kozhikode and anr. Vs. Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad522; [1957]32ITR1(Mad)
1. These two writ petitions pray for the issue of writs of prohibition or other appropriate writs prohibiting the Controller of Estates Duty, Madras, from initiating proceedings against the respective petitioners for the assessment, levy and collection of the estate duty in respect of the properties attached to the Sthanam of the Zamorin Rajah of Kozhikode or Calicut and of the Kuthiravattam Cottara, Coyalmannam amsom and desom, Palghat respectively.2. We shall first deal in detail with the case of Zamorin of Calicut who is the petitioner in the W.P. No. 59 of 1955 and subsequently with the claims of the proprietor of the other estate.3. Stated broadly, the main point raised for our consideration in these petitions is the constitutional validity of the explanation to Section 7(4) of the Estate Duty Act (XXXIV of 1953). It will, therefore, be convenient to set out the main provisions of the enactment to understand and appreciate the points raised on behalf of the petitioner. The Estate ...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Sree Manavikraman Raja, ZamorIn of Calicut Vs. the Controller of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ226
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These two writ petitions pray for the issue of writs of prohibition or other appropriate writs prohibiting the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras, from initiating proceedings against the respective petitioners for the assessment, levy and collection of the estate duty in respect of the properties attached, to the Sthanam of the Zamorin Raja of Kozhikode or Calicut and of the Kuthiravattam Cottara, Coyalmannam Amson and Desom, Palghat, respectively.2. We shall first deal in detail with the case of Zamorin of Calicut who is the petitioner in the W.P. No. 59 of 1955 and subsequently with the claims of the proprietor of the other estate.3. Stated broadly, the main point raised for our consideration in these petitions is the constitutional validity of the Explanation to Section 7(4) of the Estate Duty Act (XXXIV of 1953). It will therefore be convenient to set out the main provisions of the enactment to understand and appreciate the points raised on behalf of the pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »