Chennai Court January 1962 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.
T.R. Punnavanam Pillai Vs. V. Muthuswami Achari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ259
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This Revision Petition raises the question whether the tools of a goldsmith are exempt from attachment under Section 60(1)(b), Civil Procedure Code. Section 60, in enumerating what properties are liable to attachment and sale in execution of decrees, mentions under the Proviso to it various classes of properties which are not liable to attachment. I am concerned here with Clause (b) of Section 60(1) which reads thus:tools of artisans, and, where the judgment-debtor is an agriculturist, his implements of husbandry and such cattle and seed grain as may, in the opinion of the Court, be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood as such and such portion of agricultural produce or of any class of agricultural produce as may have been declared to be free from liability under the provisions of the next following section.2. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, against the respondent on a money claim and applied under Order 38,...
State of Madras Represented by Collector of Coimbatore Vs. SaifudIn Ab ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad140
Kailasam, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by the State of Madras, who was the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amounts due under certain bills for the goods supplied to the Assistant Agricultural Engineer (Research) Coimbatore. On an order Ex. A.14, dated 9-3-1953 from the Assistant Agricultural Engineer's Office the plaintiff supplied goods which were received by D. W. 2, the electrician of the office of the Assistant Agricultural Engineer. 23 bills were prepared for the supply of goods under the order Ex. A-14. Several of the bills were not paid and this suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2279-5-0 with interest and costs from the Government.2. The State of Madras represented by the Collector of Coimbatore averred that the order in question was signed by the Store Keeper, who was not authorised to place any order on behalf of the Government. According to the Financial Code, the proper authority, who could incur contingent cha...
S. Ramaswami Mudaliar and Co. and anr. Vs. State of Madras Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad5; (1963)IMLJ28; [1962]13STC785(Mad)
Jagadisan, J.1. T. C. No. 139 of 1958: The petitioner is a firm of partnership carrying on business in the purchase and sale of cotton and cotton seeds at Tiruppur in the State of Madras. For the assessment year 1955-56, the firm was assessed under the Madras General Sales-tax Act on a gross turnover of Rs. 19,40,317-14-0. The firm sold cotton in the relevant year to Messrs. Sitaram Spinning and Weaving Mills at Tiruchur in Kerala State for a value of Rs. 6,05,377-0-9. The Deputy Commercial-tax Officer, Tiruppur, held that the firm was liable to pay tax at the purchase value of such cotton sold and estimated the purchase value by deducting 2 per cent from the sale value, the two percent representing roughly the gross profit earned by the firm. The assessable amount came to Rs. 5,93,269-8-1.The head office of the firm was at Tiruppur and the firm had a branch office at Kunnathur. The Kunnathur branch sold cotton to Sitaram Spinning and Weaving Mills at Tiruchur and in regard to such sal...
In Re: K. Sivaswami Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: 1962CriLJ377
ORDERVeerasmami, J.1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagapattinam, by an order of his dated 25th June, i960, directed that each of the surety bonds executed by the petitioners should be forfeited. One Augustine was arrested in May 1959, and was eventually convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. The conviction was on 30th April, 1960. On the same day the petitioners as well as the convict executed a bail bond, the former as sureties. This bond was executed pending filing of an appeal against the conviction. An appeal was actually filed on 27-5-1960.Thereafter on the same day,, namely, 27th May, 1960, a fresh bail bond was executed by the petitioners in which the convict did not join. The bail bond that was executed with petitioners as sureties on 30th April. I960, specifically mentioned that the convict should be produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 9th May, 1960, or on any further d...
Saradambal Ammal Vs. Sambanda Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ166
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Ramachandra Iyer, J. (as he then was) in Application No. 2909 of 1960 in C.S. No. 263 of 1954 which itself was an application to set aside the order of the First Assistant Registrar made on 4th November, 1960 in Proclamation No. 6 of 1960 in E.P. No. 302 of 1959 settling the sale proclamation and directing sale of the properties. Very briefly stated, the learned Judge was of the view that in the absence of a judicial order directing she sale, the Officer (First Assistant Registrar) had no jurisdiction to proceed to tettle the proclamation for sale, and to issue the warrant of sale. The learned Judge-pointed out that the decree under execution was a money decree, and not a mortgage decree under which, by the force of the decree itself, there ought to be a sale. The learned Judge further observed that there was no actual order for sale in the record, the only order passed in the Execution Petition being one for attachment of prope...
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by Depu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad116; [1962]13STC967(Mad)
Jagadisan, J. 1. These tax revision cases and the writ petitions raise a common question of law, challenging the validity of the amendment to Section 8-B(2) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act introduced by Madras Act I of 1957. It will be convenient to deal with this point first before setting out the factsof each case and considering the contentions turning upon them. 2. Section 8-B, as it stood before its amendment by Madras Act I of 1957, reads:-- '8-B (1). No person who is not a registered dealer shall collect any amount by way of tax under this Act; nor shall a registered dealer make any such collection except in accordance with such conditions and restrictions, if any, as may be prescribed. Provided that the (State) Government may exempt persons who are not registered dealers from the provisions of this sub-section until such date, not being later than the 1st day of April 1948, as the (State) Government may direct. 2. Every person who has collected or collects any amount by w...
K. Chinnaraju Vs. K. Padmanabhan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1962
Reported in: 1962CriLJ702
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. This is a revision by the accused in P. R. C. No. 6 of 1960 to revise the order of the learned District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, overruling the preliminary objection that the complaint preferred against him by Sri Padmanabhan, Personal Assistant to the Collector of Tiruchirapalli on the orders of the Collector in pursuance of the enquiry held by him under P. S. O. 157 and G. O. 2854 Home dated 12-10-1955, is illegal and cannot be sustained. In my opinion, the order of the learned District Magistrate is correct and I shall proceed to give my reasons for the same.2. Section 190, CrIPC mentions three modes in which cognisance of offence may be made by a J magistrate and the first mode mentioned in it is by receiving a complaint of facts which constitute the offence. The complaint in this case would clearly come under Clause (a) of Section 190(l), cri. P.C. It is a well known principle of criminal law that anyone can set the criminal law in motion except when there ...
Venkatiah Vs. Management of the Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd., Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1962
Reported in: AIR1962Mad478; [1963(6)FLR139]; (1963)ILLJ16Mad
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J. (1) This is an appeal from the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar, J., making absolute the rule nisi and quashing the award of the Labour Court, Madras, in I. P. No. 27 of 1958. The appellant Venkatiah was employed in the Buckingham and Carnatic Mills Co., Ltd., the respondent. Service under the company is regulated by certain standing orders. Standing Order 8 sub-clause (2) provides that any employee who absents himself for eight consecutive working days without leave shall be deemed to have left the company's service without notice thereby terminating his contract of service; if however he gives an explanation to the satisfaction of the management that his absence was due to sickness, then such absence shall be converted into medical leave for such period as the employee is eligible; even otherwise, if he gives an explanation to the satisfaction of the management, the absence shall be converted into leave without pay or dearness allowance.(2) Venkatiah was grante...
M.S. Balakrishna Chetty Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1962
Reported in: [1962]13STC398(Mad)
ORDERJagadisan, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a refund certificate in a tax revision case which has not yet been taken on file. The revision petition is against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. No. 544 of 1960. In compliance with the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the petitioner has paid the court fee of Rs. 100. The memorandum of revision petition has been returned to the petitioner to cure some defects and irregularities pointed out by the office in the presentation of the petition. At this stage the petitioner does not desire to prosecute the matter further. The question for consideration now is whether he is entitled to obtain any certificate which would enable him to obtain a refund of the court fee of Rs. 100 paid on the memorandum of revision petition.2. Section I2-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act provides that every revision petition to the High Court should be in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manne...
M.S. Balakrishna Chetty Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Dep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1962
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ186
Jagadisan, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a refund certificate in a Tax Revision Case which has not yet been taken on file. The Revision Petition is against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 544 of 1960. In compliance with the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the petitioner has paid the Court-fee of Rs. 100. The memorandum of Revision Petition has been returned to the petitioner to cure some defects and irregularities pointed out by the Office in the presentation of the petition. At this stage the petitioner does not desire to prosecute the matter further. The question for consideration now is whether he is entitled to obtain any certificate which would enable him to obtain a refund of the Court-fee of Rs. 100 paid on the memorandum of Revision Petition.2. Section 12-B of the Madras General Sales Tax Act provides that every Revision Petition to the High Court should be in the prescribed form, and verified in the prescribed manner. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »