Chennai Court December 1961 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. M. Balasundaram and Compan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: [1963]14STC996(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner is a firm of partnership dealing in hides and skins. They were assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Moore Market, No. 1, under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, on their turnover for the year 1955-56. The order of assessment was passed on 22nd November, 1956. They filed an appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer, and the appeal was pending when Madras Act 1 of 1959 came into force. The appeal was transferred to the file of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Section 61(2) of Act I of 1959. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner noticed that the assessing authority had omitted to include in the total turnover certain purchases up to 6th September, 1955, for an amount of Rs. 53,205-29 nP., and that the sales of the assessee through W. A. Beardsell and Co. for an amount of Rs. 47,725-11-6 were treated as sales in the course of export and excluded from the turnover. The appellate authority issued notice to the assessee on 1...
In Re: Shaik Jaffar Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: 1962CriLJ197
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner has been convicted Under Section 72. Clause (3) (b) read with Section 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on his plea of guilty for carrying on overload of 1120 lbs. in the lorry A. P. D, 835 driven by him on 11-3-1961 at 00.15 Hours on Basin Bridge Road.2. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that the Carry was found t0 weigh 23j280 lbs. As the permitted laden weight of the lorry is only 20,160 lbs., there was an overload of 1120 lbs. The learned advocate for the petitioner produced the permit in this Court to show that the registered leden weight hag (been increased to 23,437 lbs. and urged that his conviction Under Section 72, clause 3(b) read with S. .124, Motor Vehicles Act, cannot be sustained. Section 72. clause 3 (b) refers only to registered ladep weight specified In the certificate of registration. But Section 124 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for contravention of Section 72. Section 72, Clause (1) provides for limits of weight in respect of any...
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division Vs. Sri S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ277
Jagadisan, J.1. The respondent is a firm of dealers in hides and skins at Madras. They were assessed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, No. 3, Moore Market, to their turnover for the year 1955-1956 under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The order of assessment was passed on 15th December, 1956. Their assessable turnover was determined at Rs. 11,47,315-14-7. They filed an appeal before the Commercial Tax Officer on 15th February, 1957. During the pendency of the appeal Madras Act (I of 1959) came into operation on 1st April, 1959. The appeal was transferred to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed appellate authority under the new enactment. By order of the appellate authority the assessee's turnover was reduced to Rs. 6,22,693-13-11. They preferred a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal disputing a turnover of Rs. 80,744. This turnover related to sales effected by them through Messrs. Beardsell & Co. and they claimed that these sales were in the course of e...
S.V.M. Syed Cassim Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad366
ORDER1. Syed Cassim, the petitioner in this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, dated 22-10-1960, is the lessee of the island called Muyaltheevu which lies off the coast of Ramanathapuram Dt. near Pamban. On 29-6-1960 the Custom,, Preventive Inspector, Mandapam, seized the petitioner's cargo boat No. 101 carrying 25 bundles of cocoanut leaf thatties from Muyaltheevu to Vedalai on Ramanathapuram coast. The said boat was under the control of tindal Hamid Sultan at the time. On 13-7-1960 the Superintendent of the Customs Preventive circle, Ramanathapuram, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the boat should not be confiscated under S. 168 of the Sea Customs Act on the ground that the cocoanut leaf thatties were attempted to be landed at Vadalai which was not declared a port for landing of goods and hence punishable under S. 167(2) and (...
S.V.M. Syed Cassim Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ499
ORDERGanapatia Pillai, J.1. Syed Cassim, the petitioner in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, dated 22nd October, 1960, is the lessee of the land called Muyaltheevu which lies off the coast of Ramanathapuram District near Pamban. On 29th June, 1960 the Customs Preventive Inspector, Mandapam, seized the petitioner's cargo boat No. 101 carrying twenty-five bundles of cocoanut-leaf thatties from Muyaltheevu to Vedalai on Ramanathapuram coast. The said boat was under the control of tindal Hamid Sultan at the time. On 13th July, 1960 the Superintendent of the Customs Preventive Circle, Ramanathapuram, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the boat should not be confiscated under Section 168 of the Sea Customs Act on the ground that the cocoanut-leaf thatties were attempted to be landed at Vedalai which was not declared a port for ...
A.P. Kadirvelu Naiker Vs. K.M. Lakshmana Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad314
ORDER(1) In both these writ petitions, filed under Art. 226 of the constitution the petitioner is an elected counciller of the Arcot Municipal Council and the first respondant is also a councillor and chairman of the said Municipal Council. The prayer in W. P. No. 1115 of 1961 is for the issue of awrit in the nature of quo warranto questioning the right of first reaspondent to hold 0office as chairman of the Council. The releif sought for in W. P. 1117 of 1961 is one for the issue of the writ of mandamus directing the second respondent, the commisioner of the Municipal Council Arcot to comply with the privisions of Sec. 50(4) of the District Municipal Act.(2) The petitioner submits that the first respondent has become disqualified to continue as member of the Munucipal Council, Arcot and a fortiori to function as the Chairman. The ground of disqualification urged is that the first respondent absented himself from the meetings of the Council for a period of three months consectively sin...
A.P. Kadirvelu Naicker Vs. K.M. Lakshmana Mudaliar, Chairman, Municipa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ182
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. In both these Writ Petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner is an elected Councillor of the Arcot Municipal Council and the first respondent is also a Councillor and Chairman of the said Municipal Council. The prayer in W.P. No. 1115 of 1961 is for the issue of a writ in the nature of quo warranto questioning the right of first respondent to hold office as Chairman of the Council. The relief sought for in W.P. No. 1117 of 1961 is one for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent the Commissioner of the Municipal Council Arcot to comply with the provisions of Section 50 (4) of the District Municipalities Act.2. The petitioner submits that the first respondent has become disqualified to continue as member of the Municipal Council, Arcot and a fortiori to function as the Chairman. The ground of disqualification urged is that the first respondent absented himself from the meetings of the Council for a period of three m...
Annamalai Mudaliar Vs. Kuppuswamy Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1961
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ336
Anantanarayanan, J.1. The appeal is by the plaintiff in the first Court, who failed in both the Courts below to set aside a summary order in E.A. No. 51 of 1955 in E.P.. No. 99 of 1954 which was itself an execution proceeding in O.S. No. 451 of 1951 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Ranipet. The facts adequate for. the disposal of the appeal are as follows:2. The suit properties originally belonged to Devarajulu Reddi and Pattusami Reddi of Agaram Village, who were brothers. One Eswara Vadivelu Mudaliar had obtained a simple money decree against Devarajulu in S.C. No. 75 of 1950, and the interest of the judgment-debtor in the suit property was brought to sale. The present plaintiff (appellant) purchased the property in Court auction on 26th. July, 1952. He obtained the sale certificate and also obtained symbolical possession, and later had the property allotted to his share in the final decree in a suit against the co-sharer.3. The original owners, the two brothers had e...
State of Madras Through Secretary to Government Health Dept. Vs. T.K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1963Mad14; [1962(5)FLR431]
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This appeal is by the State of Madras from the order of a learned Judge of this Court (Ramachand Iyer J. as he then was) in App. No. 112 of 1955; we may succinctly state that, by virtue of this judgment, the learned Judge held that the State had no right to order the compulsory retirement of Sri T.K. Gopaia Iyer (respondent), who was an Assistant Regional Meteriologist at Pattukottai in June 1947. In effect, the learned Judge granted a declaration in favour of the respondent that the order of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 3919, Health, dated 17-11-1950 was illegal and without jurisdiction.2. The broad facts of the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officer (respondent), which culminated in his compulsory retirement by the Government, (appellant) are not in dispute. In 1947, upon a departmental report, the Assistant Director of Public Health (Epidemics and Vital Statistics) was deputed to conduct disciplinary proceeding against the officer. Six charg...
S. Mariappa Nadar and ors., Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1961
Reported in: AIR1962Mad290; [1962]13STC371(Mad)
Srinivasan, J. (1) Certain common questions arise in these petitions. The assessments in question are under the Central Sales-tax Act for the year 1957-58. In order to understand the points in controversy, the facts relating to one petition will be set out. Though there are minor differences in the details relating to the other petitions, the questions for determination are not different.(2) T. C. No. 108 of 1959 : The assessee manufactures matches and sells the product of his factory both inside the Madras State and to dealers outside the State. He is a registered dealer under the Central Sales-Tax Act. According to the petitioner, when he sells the matches, he invoices only the sale value of the matches, that is to say, he does not include in this invoice the excise duty which is payable on the goods. He prepares a separate debt note on the buyer for this excise duty and collects that amount from the buyer. In respect of the turnover, the petitioner returned a net turnover of only Rs...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »