Chennai Court November 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 1 of about 51 results (0.008 seconds)The State of Madras Vs. S.V. Shanmughan and Co.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ66; [1960]11STC277(Mad)
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The assessee-respondent was assessed to tax for the assessment year 1953-54 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who was the 'assessing authority '. The turnover exceeded Rs. 20,000. Subsequently, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer took action under Rule 17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939 and assessed the assessee afresh to include both the original turnover and the turnover that had escaped assessment then. The turnover on which the assessee was ultimately assessed was Rs. 1,89,038. Against the revised order of assessment the assessee appealed to the Commercial Tax Officer, who rejected the appeal as not maintainable. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. The Tribunal held that the appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer was maintainable and remanded the appeal for disposal afresh by the Commercial Tax Officer. The State challenged the correctness of the order of the Appellate Tribunal by this applicati...
Tag this Judgment!The Coonoor Mosque by Secretary, Ismail Usman Sait Vs. M.G. Abdul Hami ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ135
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Ootacamund, is the Controller for that area, appointed under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1949. The petitioner filed two applications before the Subordinate Judge and Rent Controller under Section 7(2) of the Act, to evict certain tenants from the premises of which they were in occupation. On each of those applications, the petitioner affixed a Court-fee stamp of the value of Re. 1. The Subordinate Judge directed him to pay a Court-fee of Rs. 5 on each application. The petitioner contends that this demand is not in accordance with law and has come to this Court in revision.2. Applications of the kind which the petitioner filed before the Rent Controller, the Nilgiris, can be brought only under one or other of the following three categories in Schedule II to Madras Act XIV of 1955:(1) Article 10(k) which runs as follows: Particulars. Proper fee.10. (k) Application or petition not falling underC...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ86; [1960]11STC224(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal raises a question regarding the liability of the Trustees of the Port of Madras to sales tax in respect of the charges levied and collected by them for water supplied to the ships that anchor at the Madras Port. Under Section 171 of the City Municipal Act, the Corporation of Madras is bound to supply the Port Trust with water on such terms as to payment and subject to such conditions of supply as shall be determined by the Council of the Corporation, subject to appeal to the State Government. The water supplied by the Corporation is stored by the Port Trust authorities in tanks specially constructed for the purpose and thereafter utilised for the purposes of the Port. One of the purposes, for which water is utilised, is to supply the same to the ships that call at the Port of Madras. The Corporation charges the Port Trust at the rate of Rs. 4-7-0 per 1000 gallons of water supplied by it. The Port Trust, in turn, charges the ships which take water on t...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa and ors. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ1222
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. The appellants were tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Bellary, in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1957 on his file, for the murder of one Mareppa on the midnight of 31 3 1957 at Benakal village, Bellary District. They are also tried for some other offences alleged to have been committed at the time of the said murder. They were convicted Under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Further appellants 1 and 2 (Basappa and Badrigadu respectively) were convicted for an offence Under Section 324, for causing hurt to Mareppa, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant No. 31 (Chakalabandi Adavappa) was convicted for an of m fence Under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to P.W. 2 (Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant No. 4 (Phothagadu) was convicted Under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to P.W. 2 (Mariswamappa) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!P.E. Rubalingam Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad350
(1) The Collector of Madras availed himself of the services of the petitioner to sell rice to the public at fair price. The machinery utilised was that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Collector whereunder the petitioner agreed to purchase stated quantities of rice from the Collector and to sell it to the public at prices fixed by him. While the agreement of this sort was in force, the Collector cancelled and terminated the agreement. It is stated that he did so without any enquiry as to the misconduct which he alleged against the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity to show cause. As these facts are admitted, it would follow that if the petitioner had a statutory or other legal right to the continuance of the contract, its termination in such circumstances would entitle him to move this court under Art. 226.(2) The question however is whether the question of violation of the principles of natural justice would be attracted to a case, where th...
Tag this Judgment!Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem Vs. D. Krishnamoorthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1961Mad475; (1960)IIMLJ314
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan J. in W. P. No. 234 of 1956. That was a petition filed by the first respondent D. Krishnamurthi, for the issue of a writ in the nature of a mandamus or other appropriate writ to direct the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, who is also the Rent Controller, and one Abu Bakker, District Employment Officer. Salem, to forbear from interfering with the petitioner's right to occupy his house No. 17 Sahadevapuram extension, Salem. The first respondent who will be referred to hereinafter as the respondent purchased the house on 27th May 1954.On the date of the Purchase the house was in the occupation of a tenant who continued to occupy it till he vacated the premises on 13th September 1955. The respondent gave the requisite notice of vacancy under Section 3(1)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXV of 1949) to the Rent Controller, Salem on 14th September 1955. The notice appears to have been receive...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramaswami Mudaliar Vs. S.A. Aiyasami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad467
Ramaswami, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in O. S. No. 165 of 1954.(2) The suit out of which this appeal arises was for (a) settling a scheme, and (b) removing the defendant from trusteeship, (c) appointing a new trustee as per the scheme to be settled, (d) directing the defendant to render accounts of the income from the trust properties since 1945, and to direct him to pay to the trust whatever is found due on account of past and present income and profits in the suit properties and (e) any other directions regarding the suit charities and other reliefs.(3) The suit was filed on the foot of the following allegations: The plaint A schedule properties were endowed by the late Narayanaswami Mudaliar, the adoptive father of the defendant, and the late Arunachalam Chettiar, the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and paternal uncle of the third plaintiff, from a portion of profits earned in their partnership business and se...
Tag this Judgment!M.S. Mariappa Nadar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1960]11STC215(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. This application under Section 12-B of the Sales Tax Act arises out of re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1952-53. The petitioner-assessee was originally assessed to sales tax on an estimated turnover on 29th March, 1954. That order was passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, as the 'assessing authority' appointed under the Act. The assessee appealed to the Commercial Tax Officer, who dismissed the appeal on 6th August, 1954. Subsequent to that, after an examination of the accounts, of one Suruli Nadar, the Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice on 12th April, 1955, in purported exercise of the revisional powers conferred upon him by Section 12 of the Act, calling upon the assessee to show cause why the assessments should not be revised by the Commercial Tax Officer. The assessee lodged his objections, one of which was that the Commercial Tax Officer who had disposed of the appeal could not himself revise his own order under Section 12 of the Act. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Balakrishnan (N.N.)
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1961)ILLJ93Mad
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted for not taking out a licence under Section 6 of the Factories Act read with Rule 5(3) of the Madras Factories Rules, 1950. The factory was inspected on 24 July 1957 and 24 persons were found engaged in the manufacture of goods in the same premises. A prosecution was launched and the petitioner was convicted and the conviction is still in force. Subsequently on 7 March 1958 the inspector again visited the place, but on this occasion he found only 18 persons working. The question is whether he can be convicted on the strength of the earlier report of finding 24 persons working on 24 July 1957.2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he having been convicted once, that is for engaging 24 persons on 24 July 1957, that circumstance cannot be taken into consideration again because Section 2(m)(ii) of the Factories Act says: 'Where twenty or more workers were working on any day of the precedin...
Tag this Judgment!P.E. Rubalingam Vs. the State of Madras, by Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ328
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The Collector of Madras availed himself of the services of the petitioner to sell rice to the public at fair price. The machinery utilised was that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Collector whereunder the petitioner agreed to purchase stated quantities of rice from the Collector and to sell it to the public at prices fixed by him. While the agreement of this sort was in force, the Collector cancelled and terminated the agreement. It is stated that he did so without any enquiry as to the misconduct which he alleged against the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity to show cause. As these facts are admitted, it would follow that if the petitioner had a statutory or other legal right to the continuance of the contract, its termination in such circumstances would entitle him to move this Court under Article 226.2. The question, however, is whether the question of violation of the principles of natural justice would b...
Tag this Judgment!