Chennai Court May 1957 Judgments
In Re: Pandarasannadhi of Dharmapuram Adhinam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-29-1957
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ227
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. S.R. No. 16033 is a plaint which has to be filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli. The main relief prayed for in the suit is one for injunction against defendants who have been impleaded thereto. C.M.P. No. 3912 of 1957 is an application filed in this Court to receive this plaint (S.R. No. 16033) and transmit the same to the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, after passing an order for in terlocutory injunction which is prayed for in C.M.P. No. 3913 of 1957. The matter came up before me for orders as to the maintainability of the petition C.M.P. No. 3812 of 1957 namely to receive the plaint.2. Mr. Champakesa Ayyangar, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged before me various grounds in support of the jurisdiction of this Court to receive this plaint. He, however, conceded that this jurisdiction had ultimately to turn upon the proper construction of Clause 13 of the Letters Patent.3. The earliest decision of this Court on this point is an unrepor...
Tag this Judgment!V. Guruviah Naidu and Brothers and ors. Vs. the State of Madras and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-28-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC690(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These several writ petitions which we shall presently group into various classes have been filed by dealers in several commodities who under the rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act have been required to take out licences and pay the fees prescribed therefor under these rules. The common point that arises in these several petitions is the validity of the licensing provisions themselves and the objection to quantum of the licence fee prescribed by the rules, and in particular to these fees as enhanced by certain amendments made in 1955 to which we shall advert in its proper place.2. These dealers fall into several classes depending upon the commodities in which they are trading and it would be convenient to classify them even at the beginning so that the problems arising in regard to each trade might be dealt with in a group. 3. W.P. Nos. 85, 116, 117, 404, 457 to 459 are concerned with dealers trading in hides and skins. The petitioners in W.P. ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Guruviah Naidu and Brothers Vs. State of Madras Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-28-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad249; (1957)2MLJ469
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These several writ petitions which we shall presently group into various classes have been filed by dealers in several commodities who under the rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act have been required to take out licences and pay the fees prescribed therefor under these rules. The common point that arises in these several petitions is the validity of the licensing provisions themselves and the objection to quantum of the licence fee prescribed by the rules, and in particular to these fees as enhanced by certain amendments made in 1955 to which we shall advert in its proper place.2. These dealers fall into several classes depending upon the commodities in which they are trading and it would be convenient to classify them even at the beginning so that the problems arising in regard to each trade might be dealt with in a group.3. W.P. Nos. 85, 116, 117, 404, 457 to 459 are concerned with dealers trading in hides and skins. The petitioners in W...
Tag this Judgment!K. Parthasarathy Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC632(Mad)
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in vegetables in the Kotwal Market, Madras. The petitioner claimed that he specialised in the sale of yams.2. Section 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) runs :6.(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, make an exemption, or reduction in rate, in respect of any tax payable under this Act-(i) on the sale of any specified class of goods, at all points or at a specified point or points in the series of sales by successive dealers; or(ii) by any specified class of persons, in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover.(2) Any exemption from tax, or reduction in the rate of tax, notified under Sub-section (1)-(a) may extend to the whole State or to any specified area or areas therein;(b) may be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, including conditions as to licences and licence fees.3. The relevant portion of the notification dated 25th...
Tag this Judgment!K. Parthasarathy Mudaliar Vs. State of Madras by Dy. Commissioner of C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ300
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in vegetables in the Kotwal Market, Madras. The petitioner claimed that he specialised in the sale of yams.2. Section 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) runs:6(1). The State Government may, by notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, make an exemption or reduction in rate, in respect of any tax payable under this Act.(i) on the sale of any specified class of goods at all points or at a specified point or points in the series of sales by successive dealers, or(ii) by any specified class of persons, in regard to the whole or any part of their turnover.(2) Any exemption from tax, or reduction in the rate of tax, notified under Sub-section (1)--(a) may extend to the whole State or to any specified area or areas therein;(b) may be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the notification including conditions as to licenses and license fees.3. The relevant portion of the notification, dated 25th M...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Ayyangar by Power of Attorney Agent S. Jambagathammal Vs. Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ369
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These writ petitions raise for consideration the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunals created under the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act (XIV of 1952) and the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act (XXV of 1955) in relation to tenants on lands which are claimed to be comprised in ' Estates ' falling within the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908). These writ petitions originally came on before one of us, but in view of the importance of the questions raised and the difficult points of statutory construction involved the petitions were directed to be posted before a Bench and they were accordingly heard by us.2. Before setting out or examining the precise points which are raised by these petitions we consider it usefui to narrate the facts which have given rise to them.3. We shall start with W.P. No. 1092 of 1956. It has been filed by tenants against whom an order for eviction was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, acting under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Estate of Late Khan Sahib Mohammad Oomer Sahib, by Joint Receivers S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ321
Rajagopalan, J.1. When Khan Sahib Mohammad Oomer Sahib died intestate on 17th December, 1942, his heirs succeeded to his house properties and to the business of manufacture and sale of beedies that he had carried on. The heirs were Noorullah, a son by his predeceased wife, Oomer's widow Luthfunnissa Begum, and his four children by her. The children were all minors when he died. Noorullah, represented by his maternal uncle Dawood as his next friend, applied to this Court in Application No. 495 of 1943 for permission to institute a suit for partition in forma pauperis. During the pendency of these proceedings, on 17th March,1943, two advocates of this Court, Mr. Azizuddin and Mr. Karunakaran, were appointed joint receivers of all the properties of Oomer. That appointment was based on compromise on that point and at that stage between all the heirs of Oomer. Since the widow Luthfunnissa anticipated delay in the disposal of the application made by Noorullah to institute his suit for partit...
Tag this Judgment!Estate of Khan Sahib Mohd. Oomer Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-14-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR767(Mad)
The judgment of court was delivered byRAJAGOPALAN, J. - When Khan Sahib Mohammed Oomer Sahib died intestate on December 17, 1942, his heirs succeeded to his house properties and to the business of manufacture and sale of beedies that he had carried on. The heirs were Noorullah, a son by his predeceased wife, Oomers widow, Luthfunnissa Begum, and his four children by her. The children were all minors when he died. Noorullah, represented by his maternal uncle. Dawood, as his next friend, applied to this court in Application No. 495 of 1943 for permission to institute a suit for partition in forma pauperis. During the pendency of these proceedings, on March, 17, 1943, two advocates of this court, Mr. Azizuddin and Mr. Karunakaran, were appointing joint receivers of all the properties of Oomer. That appointment was based on compromise on that point and at that stage between all the heirs of Oomer. Since the widow Luthfunnissa anticipated delay in the disposal of the application made by Noo...
Tag this Judgment!The Hindu and anr. Vs. their Workers (Madras Union of Journalists)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1957
Reported in: (1957)IILLJ275Mad
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These two petitions seek the issue of writs of certiorari to call for the records of the industrial tribunal, Madras, and aside two awards passed by it in which each of these petitioners is interested. The management of the Hindu Madras, are the petitioners in W.P. No. 263 of 1957 while W.P. No. 385 of 1957 has been preferred by the management of the Express Newspapers (Private), Ltd. The common question that arises in both these petitions is as to whether proofreaders employed in their respective establishments are working journalists entitled to the benefits conferred on this class of employees by Chap. II and in particular by Section 6 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (45 of 1955), to which I shall hereafter refer as the Act.2. I shall set out a few facts to explain the dispute between the parties and the precise points arising for decision in these petitions.3. Both the Hindu as well as the Express Ne...
Tag this Judgment!N.K.C. Syed Mohamed Ravoother Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ30
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. This application for the issue of a writ of certiorari, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, arises out of proceedings taken by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirukoilur, to assess the petitioner to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act (IX of 1939) for the assessment year 1952-53.2. The petitioner was a dealer in grocery with his principal place of business at Ulundurpet within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirukoilur, in South Arcot District. The petitioner was first assessed to tax on a turnover of Rs. 86,441-14-9 for the assessment year 1952-1953. The assessment was completed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirukoilur on 10th February, 1954. Proceedings were subsequently taken under Rule 17 of the General Sales Tax Rules and on 20th March, 1956, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirukoilur, revised' the assessment for 1952-1953, to include in the assessable turnover of the petitioner a further sum of Rs. 56...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »