Chennai Court April 1963 Judgments
Chelladurai and ors. Vs. Sornam Alias Eswaramurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ55
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, J.1. This proceeding involves a very interesting question, relating to the interpretation of Section 16(1) of the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950. I might immediately add that the point is res Integra, and that the learned Counsel have not been able to draw my attention to any relevant authority on the subject. But it is a matter for some satisfaction, lessening the responsibility upon me in deciding the point, that the Revision Petition itself admits of a disposal, without a final expression of opinion on the issue that I have just referred to. Actually, the Revision Petition does not call for any conclusive order here ; on the contrary, the interests of justice are both imperative and clear that the proceeding under Section 19(1) before the learned District Munsif, will have to be remitted to him for further evidence upon basic facts, and for dealing with the petition in the light of such recorded evidence.2. It is not necessary to set forth Section 16(1)...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sivaprakasa Mudaliar Vs. the State of Madras Represented by Special ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad115
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. On 17th September 1958, the State Government by a Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition act to acquire a large tract of land measuring about acres in Kodambakkam area for the purpose of rehabilitation of the slum dwellers in Kanniappanagar and other slum areas in the City of Madras. By the same notification and indeed as part of it, the Government in exercise of their powers Under Section 17(4) of the Act, dispensed with the provision of Section 5-A of the Act as the proposed acquisition, their opinion was an urgent one. The notification mentioned above was in due course followed by publication Under Section 6. that was on 26th November 19bb. sometime later notices were issued to the various owners Under Section 9(3) calling upon them, to file their claims for compensation. it appears that there were some objections to the acquisition before the Government and it took some time for them to consider and dispose of the same, the appellant owns 2.44 acres ...
Tag this Judgment!Samidorai thennavarayar Vs. Vaithilinga thennavarayaar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad314
Jagadisan, J.1. The question raised is of some importance, as it relates to the right of appeal to the Supreme Court wider Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution, read along with Section 110 C. P. C. I agree with the judgment of my learned brother; but, I however, wish to add a few words, having regard to the. fact that no direct decision on, the precise point now in issue has been brought to our notice. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition have been fully set out by Kailasam J. and they need not be repeated.2. A right of appeal is a substantive right, though it stems from a statute or the Constitution, and is not inherent in every defeated suitor. The constitutional provisions dealing with the, right of appeal to the Supreme Court have to be read with due regard to the qualifications, limitations and restrictions contained therein; but with a liberality which would favour an appeal being preferred rather than with the stringency that would defeat it. If the words are suff...
Tag this Judgment!Samidorai thennavarayar Vs. Vaithilinga thennavarayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ7
G.R. Jagadisan, J.1. The question raised is of some importance, as it relates to the right of appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution read along with section no, Civil Procedure Code. I agree with the judgment of my learned brother ; but I, however, wish to add a few words, having regard to the fact that no direct decision on the precise point now in issue had been brought to our notice. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition have been fully set out by Kailasam, J., and they need not be repeated.2.A right of appeal is a substantive right, though it stems from a statute or the Constitution, and is not inherent in every defeated suitor. The Constitutional provisions dealing with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court have to be read with due regard to the qualifications, limitations and restrictions contained therein; but with a liberality which would favour an appeal being preferred rather than with the stringency that would defeat it. If th...
Tag this Judgment!Habibunnissa Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC271(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1.The petitioner, who was a licensed dealer and tanner, was assessed to sales tax for the year 1953-54 to a tax of Rs. 10,937-80 nP. The turnover consisted of purchases of untanned hides and skins from licensed dealers which attracted tax at the point of purchase under Section 3(1) read with Section 5(vi) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The Tribunal's order, on appeal, was made on 9th September, 1957. It does not appear that the petitioner agitated the matter further by filing a revision petition to this Court. This petition is to forbid the revenue from collecting the tax.2. The Rule is asked for on two grounds. The first of them is with reference to Section 24(2)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The contention is that the particular Magistrate to whom application has been made by the department is competent to impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 2,000, and that, as, in the instant case, the tax far exceeds that amount, the Magistrate will have n...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppuswami Raja and anr. Vs. Perumal Raja and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad291
Ramamurti, J.1. The two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the common judgment of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., in S. A. Nos. 1342 and 1343 of 1954. They raise identical and common questions of fact and law arising out of two suits, O.S. Nos. 105 and 107 of 1952, District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli. The two suits though filed separately by two different plaintiffs are identical in averments made and the reliefs claimed by them. The defendants are the same in both the suits.2. There were two brothers, one Perumal who died in 1950 and one Chinnappa who died in 1949. Perumal left behind him his widow, Kuppammal, the first defendant in both the suits while Ammani Ammal the widow of Chinnappa is the second defendant in both the suits. These two brothers had three sisters and Duraiswami, the plaintiff in O.S. 105 of 1952 is the son of Nachiar Ammal, one sister, while Kuppuswami, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 107 of 1952 is the son of another sister Venguammal. Defendants 3 to 6 are the children t...
Tag this Judgment!B.M.S. (Pte.) Ltd. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad266
Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is a writ appeal instituted by Messrs. B. M. S. (P) Ltd., who were the petitioners before Ramachandra Iyer, J. (as he then was) in W. P. No. 467 of 1958, dealt with by the learned Judge along with other petitions. A few facts are essential for the disposal of the single main ground upon which the appeal has been argued and pressed before us and, with regard to which, we have been constrained to differ from the conclusion of the learned Judge, with great respect.2. For certain routes within the town of Coimbatore, two stage carriage permits were notified, and several transport firms were applicants, among which, we are now only concerned with the appellant (B. M. S. (P) Ltd.,) the third respondent before the learned Judge (Mettupalayam Coonoor Service (P) Ltd.,) and the 4th respondent (S.S.V. Motor Service). We might immediately state that one ground of appeal related to the reduction of marks by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal with regard to the appell...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Iyer Vs. Bar Council Represented by Its Secretary, H.C. Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad390
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is; an appeal from the judgment of Veeraswami J. refusing to issue a writ of certiorari prayed for by the appellant to have the order of the Slate Bar Council, Madras, dated 27-6-1962, quashed. The appellant is a First Grade Pleader, practising till recently in the district of Kanyakumari. He applied to She Bar Council under S. 25 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (which will hereafter be referred to as the Act) for admission as an advocate on the State roll. The Enrolment Committee of the Bar Council not being satisfied with the appellant's qualifications as prescribed by Section 24(1)(c) and (d) of the Act, took action Under Section 26 and by its letter dated 27th June 1962 referred the application to the Bar Council of India for its opinion. It was on the basis, that that letter amounted to a final order rejecting his application that the appellant applied to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash it. Veeraswami J. dismissed the applicati...
Tag this Judgment!K.O. Mohamed Sulaiman and Co. and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC593(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The petitioner, who was a dealer in hides and skins at Madras, made no return under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, for the year 1954-55. He had not taken out a licence for the year and he was apparently not prompted to file a return on his understanding of the law that it was only in the case of a licensed dealer in these goods any tax liability arose. In fact this Court also was of the opinion that dealings in hides and skins not covered by a licence were not chargeable to tax. This view was not accepted by the Supreme Court which held that such transactions would be liable to multi-point tax under Section 6-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Madras, by his notice dated 26th June, 1956, called upon the petitioner to produce his accounts on a specified date. On that date the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer scrutinized the accounts but nothing transpired immediately thereafter. From the assessmen...
Tag this Judgment!H.H. Naeems and Company Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1963
Reported in: [1964]15STC269(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The only point raised in this petition is the one based on Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the year 1952-53 by an order dated 15th February, 1956. The petitioner was an unlicensed dealer for the period. Nevertheless relying on the provisions of Section 6-A the petitioner was charged to tax on the basis that his transactions of sales in hides and skins were liable to tax under Section 3(1) and they were not entitled to the benefit of the single point scheme of taxation. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 15th October, 1960. By the time this happened, the law on the subject became settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Noor Mohammed & Co. [1960] 11 S.T.C. 570. No further appeal was taken to the Tribunal or revision to this Court by the petitioner. The petitioner now wants this Court to quash the assessment order on the ground that it offended Article 14 of the Constitution.2. It seems to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »