Chennai Court September 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 2 of about 63 results (0.017 seconds)C.K.N.S. Nagarajan and ors. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1959]10STC605(Mad)
ORDERThe Order of the Court was pronounced byRamachandra Iyer, J.1. For the assessment year 1952-53 each of the petitioners was assessed to sales tax on the turnover of the sales of sugar-cane effected by him to the East India Distilleries and Sugar Factories Ltd., Nellikuppam, hereinafter referred to as the Factory. In the case of two of the petitioners (T. R. C. Nos. 196 and 210 of 1956), it was a case of reassessment by recourse to Rule 17 of the General Sales Tax Rules, after the original assessment on them had been completed. Since the questions that arise for determination in these petitions are identical they can be disposed of together by a common order.2. Supplies of sugar-cane to sugar factories are regulated by the Madras Sugar Factories Control Act (XX of 1949), The factory has to take out a licence for crushing sugar-cane. After ascertaining the quantity of sugar-cane that would be required for such a factory, the authorities notify an area as reserved area for that factor...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. the India Coffee Board
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1960]11STC1(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. The India Coffee Board, Batlagundu, the petitioner, was assessed to sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 3,89,38,275 for the assessment year 1949-50. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who ordered the assessment excluded a turnover of Rs. 33,73,733 on the ground that this represented sales of coffee exported outside the Indian Union.2. The petitioner contended that it was not a dealer at all and that it was not liable to be assessed to sales tax. Even the assessment ordered by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was challenged by an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer. That appeal was dismissed on 31st May, 1951. A further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal failed and the Tribunal affirmed the order of assessment on 24th July, 1952. A revision under Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act to this Court also failed. The Judgment of this Court delivered on 14th April, 1954, was reported in Indian Coffee Board, Batlagundu v. The State of Madras (1954) 5 S.T...
Tag this Judgment!C.K.N.S. Nagarajan Vs. the State of Madras (by Secretary, Revenue Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ178
ORDERRamachandra Iyer, J.1. For the assessment year 1952-53 each of the petitioners -was assessed to sales-tax on the turnover of the sales of sugar-cane effected by him to the East India Distilleries and Sugar Factories Limited, Nellikuppam, hereinafter referred to as the Factory. In the case of two of the petitioners (T.R.C. Nos. 196 and 210 of 1956), it was a case of re-assessment by recourse to rule 17 of the General Sales Tax Rules, after the original assessment on them had been completed. Since the questions that arise for determination in these petitions are identical they can be disposed of together by a common order.2. Supplies of sugar-cane to sugar factories are regulated by the Madras Sugar Factories Control Act (Act XX of 1949). The factory has to take out a licence for crushing sugar-cane. After ascertaining the quantity of sugar-cane that would be required for such a factory, the authorities notify an area as reserved area for that factory for the crushing season. Under ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commerci ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ376
ORDER1. The Indian Coffee Board, Batlagundu, the petitioner, was assessed to sales tax on a turnover of Rs. 3,89,38,275/- for the assessment year 1949-50. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who ordered the assessment excluded a turnover of Rs. 33,73,733 on the ground that this represented sales of coffee exported outside the Indian Union.2. The petitioner contended that it was not a dealer at all and that it was not liable to be assessed to sales tax. Even the assessment ordered by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was challenged by an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer. That appeal was dismissed on 31st May, 1951. A further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal failed, and, the Tribunal affirmed the order of assessment on 24th July, 1952. A revision under Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act to this Court also failed. The judgment of this Court delivered on 14th April, 1954, was reported in Indian Coffee Board, Batlagundu v. The State of Madras 5 S.T.C. 292.3. After ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Naina Mohamed
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ620; (1960)1MLJ118
Ramaswami, J.1. I entirely agree with the observations of my learned brother enunciating pellucidly, if I may respectfully say so, the scope of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and its due place in criminal trials. On account of the importance of the topic, I would like to add the following:2. This section should be applied with care and caution in criminal cases. But it cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases : B.N. Chatterji v. Dinesh Chandra Guba : AIR1948Cal58 . See Woodroffe and Ameer Ali's Law of Evidence in India, Tenth Edition, by Malik, C.J. (1958), Volume II, page 1260 - Applicability to Criminal Cases.3. The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials in this country that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. This section is on the other hand to be taken along with the provisions of that general rule : Lachman Singh v. The King ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Meenakshisundaram Vs. S.R. Radhakrishna Pillai
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ401
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is the second of its kind, arising in the same proceedings, i.e., election petition, O.P. No. 10 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, acting as Election Tribunal. The first of the petitions (C.R.P. No. 1378 of 1959), was filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure; and since it was understood that such a petition would not lie, that petition has been substituted by the present petition. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider any point arising out of the earlier petition.2. The present petition under consideration is one which seeks to set aside the order of the learned Election Tribunal in I.A. No. 253 of 1959 in the said O.P. No. 10 of 1959. The facts relevant to this petition are that the present petitioner, who is respondent in the said O.P., is the candidate declared elected in a municipal election for Ward VII of Kumbakonam Municipality. The respondent in this Civil Revisi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramayee
Court: Chennai
Reported in: 1960CriLJ491
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Tirucliirappalli, in' S.C. No, 36 of 1959 on his file. He has found the first accused before him (Ritmayee) guilty of murder Under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced her to death The second accused, her lover was acquitted, and there is no appeal from this acquittal by the State before us.2. The facts are clear and within a brief com-i pass. The case depends for its proof, as far as Al is concerned, upon certain circumstantial pieces of testimony which we shall refer to in detail later and upon two extra-judicial confessions said to have been made by Al upon the very morning of the occurrence to two witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 arid P.W. 8.(After stating the facts His Lordship proceeds).3. Beyond a bare denial of the facts of evidence, the first accused has not attempted any other defence. She merely stated that the witnesses were deposing falsely, owing to several very minor disputes; that she did not see P.W. 1 a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Parvathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ332
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This appellant, Parvathi Ammal, has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram Division at Madurai, of offences under Sections 302, Indian Penal Code (three counts) and 309, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life upon the charge of murder and simple imprisonent for six months under Section 309, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently. Further, the learned Judge has made a recommendation under Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code, that the Government might be pleased to commute the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three years.2. The facts are very clearly established in evidence, and have throughout been admitted by (he accused. The accused was married to one Sevugan (P.W. 1) as his third wife, and these people were residing at Sillampatti Village in Tirupattur Taluk. The accused and Sevugan (P.W. 1) had four children, of which the eldest was a daughter named Chinthamani, and the others were...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Sivaguru Vs. P.S. Saroja
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad216
(1) This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Principal City Civil Judge, Madras, dismissing a petition before him under S. 12(1)(c) and (d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, XXV of 1955. That petition was instituted by the present appellant, an upper division clerk in the office of the Accountant General, Madras, to have his marriage with his wife Saroja (the respondent) annulled on the ground that the respondent was, at the time of the marriage, pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.(2) Before proceeding into the merits of the evidence, I have to take note of a point of law urged before me by learned counsel for the appellant (Mr. T. K. Kasturi), which appears to be res integra, and is also of some interest and significance. The point relates to the burden of proof in such cases, and may not be very material at the present stage, in the sense that the entire evidence was before the lower Court when the learned City Civil Judge proceeded to judgment, and it is certainly ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kandaswami Vs. S.B. Adityan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad170
(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Kanyakumari at Nagarcoil acting as the Election Tribunal, Tirunelveli in Election Petition No. 98 of 1957. The petitioner, who is the appellant before us, was one Kandaswami. He was a contesting candidate for the election to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Sattankulam constituency. In the election he was defeated and the first respondent was declared elected to the said constituency.Thereupon, the appellant filed an election petition before the said Election Tribunal questioning the validity of the election of the first respondent and praying that the election of the first respondent to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Sattankulam constituency should be declared void and that he should be paid the costs of the petition.(2) Though the petitioner sought the election of the first respondent to be declared void as required by the rules, the second, third and fourth respondents were made parties, as a...
Tag this Judgment!