Chennai Court September 1963 Judgments
Sukraj Peerajee Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, P.T. Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: AIR1965Mad137; (1965)1MLJ182; [1964]15STC704(Mad)
(1) This appeal under the Letters Patent is filed against the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai J. W. P. 104 of 1959. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are succinctly the following.(2) One Purushotham Raju conducted a business known as the All India Trading Co. and he was the sole proprietor. He was assessed to sales tax, in respect of his turnover for 1948-49 and 1949-50, the dates of the assessment being 20-3-1950 and 30-3-11951. The assessee paid some amount towards the sales tax thus determined, but here remained substantial arrears for 1948-49 (Rs. 3836-4-0) and for 1949-50 (Rs. 1218-1-9). The department took coercive steps including prosecution, to collect the arrears form the aforesaid assessee, but the proceedings were not pursued after the criminal proceedings were dropped on 10-12-111955. Thereafter on 5-10-11956, the assessee transferred his business for-consideration of Rupees 25,000 by a registered instrument to one Sukhraj Peerajee, the petitioner in the writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Srinivasan Pillai Sons Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: [1965]16STC583(Mad)
K. Srinivasan, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance and calls for an examination of the saving provisions of the 1959 Madras General Sales Tax Act in their application to the proceedings that were pending on the date of the repeal of the 1939 Act. The facts are briefly these:--2. There was an assessment upon the assessees for the assessment year 1955-56 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer under the provisions of the 1939 Act. An appeal was taken to the Commercial Tax Officer who was the Appellate Authority under that Act. It is not necessary to enter into the details of that appellate order. The order was made on 18th August, 1958. Under the provisions of the 1939 Act, the assessees had two alternative courses open to them. They could either appeal to the Tribunal from the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer on appeal, or move the Deputy Commissioner in revision under Section 12(2) of the Act and seek his intervention in respect of any order passed or proceeding ...
Tag this Judgment!Sona Ana Pana Baulraj Alias Subbiah Nadar and anr. Vs. S.P. Vadivelu N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ121
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. The first respondent, which is a firm of partners comprising of the second respondent and his sons, was originally doing business at Usilampatti but subsequently shifted its business to Madurai. The firm was carrying on business in the preparation and sale of a medicinal oil described as ' Manthithoppu Manikatti Swamigal Sarvaroga Sanjivi Thailam'. The second respondent learnt the process of preparing the medicinal oil from Manikatti Swamigal of Inam Manthithoppu and got an exclusive right to manufacture and sell the said thailam within the district of Madurai by virtue of the agreement Exhibit P-I dated 21st July, 1933 entered into with the said Swamigal. He got the label ' Sarva Roga Sanjeevi Thailam ' marked as ' A' in Exhibit P-2 registered under the document at Calcutta on 10th September, 1934. He issued a notice of registration in respect of the same in the issue of the Tamil Paper ' Jayabharathi ' dated 18th November, 1936 as evidenced by Exhibit P.-3. Su...
Tag this Judgment!Appavu Gounder Vs. Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ210
ORDERS. Ramachandra Iyer, CJ.1. I am of opinion that the view taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer that the order passed in pursuance of the compromise of a previous application for eviction could be executed on the performance of the conditions specified therein, is correct. There was an application by the landlord for eviction of the tenant but that was compromised on 4th July, 1959. That provided that on the landlord paying a certain sum, the tenant was to surrender possession. The order of the Court ran in terms of the compromise. The result was that there existed an executable order for enforcing surrender of possession. In the present case, the landlord, admittedly, performed his obligations by paying the sum of Rs. 4,000; but the tenant refused to deliver possession. On an application being made to the Revenue Divisional Officer, he directed an eviction order to ensue. This order has been challenged by Sethuratnam on the ground that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to pass...
Tag this Judgment!L.M. Chitale and Son by Sole Surviving Partners, S.L. Chitale Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ379
ORDERK. Srinivasan, J.1. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution pray for the issue of certiorari to call for the records of the Commissioner of Labour and to quash his order dated 27th October, 1960, and the order of Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dated the 26th April, 1961, respectively. The facts are briefly as below.2. The petitioner in W.P. No. 602 of 1961 is a partner of a registered firm of Chartered Architects. The firm of the petitioner terminated the services of one T.M. Lingam, an employee, after issuing due notice to him. Though the termination. of his service was not objected to by that employee, he subsequently preferred an appeal under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for payment of gratuity or other amounts, or, in the alternative, for his reinstatement. The petitioner objected to the proceedings contending that as the firm was carrying on a profession of Consulting Architects, i...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Natesa Mudaliar, Proprietor, S.L.N.S. Transports Vs. Sri Dhanapal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad136
Jagadisan, J.1. The petitioner and the first respondent are engaged in the business of transport service, operating motor buses, or stage carriages in the par lance of the Motor Vehicles Act, in and around Chingleput Dt. The first respondent is a limited company holding two stage carriage permits on the route Madras to Kancheepuram. In respect of two of its buses on that route it applied for an extension of that route to a place in North Arcot Dt. called Nemili. The application was made to the Regional Transport authority, Chingleput, and it purported to be an application for variation of the route Madras-Kancheepuram as Madras-Kancheepuram-Nemili. In other words, the applicant-operator desired to shift the terminus of Kancheepuram to Nemili-a place which is at a distance of 15 miles from Kancheepuram. The application was duly notified by the transport authority Under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and objections were made by various persons, ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. A.R. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad166; (1966)IILLJ17Mad
Jagadisan, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this Court in W. A. No. 78 of 1961 affirming the judgment in W. P. No. 977 of 1958.2. The writ petition was one under Article 226 of the Constitution by an officer in Government service to quash the disciplinary proceedings against him which culminated in his compulsory retirement. He succeeded before Ramachandra Iyer J., as he then was, and the learned juage issued a writ. On appeal by the State of Madras we contained the issue of writ, The State now prays for leave to appeal from our judgment.3. We may point out at the outset that the respondent officer is now 58 years old and he reached the superannuation limit three years ago. The order of writ in his favour cannot avail him to get into the office again. This circumstance cannot operate retrospectively to support the correctness of the judgment now called in question nor to dismiss the application for leave if it is competent under ...
Tag this Judgment!Pappathi Ammal Alias Nallammal Vs. Nallu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad173
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This appeal which is tiled under Cl. 15 Letters patent against the judgment of Venkatadri J. has been referred to this Bench on account of the importance of the question involved in. it. The question can be stated thus:'Whether in respect of a debt incurred by an agriculturist after the coming into force of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, it is necessary before the debtor can. be given relief Under Section 13 thereof that he should prove that his qualification as an agriculturist subsisted on the date when it is sought to be enforced against him?'The facts which have given rise to this reference are these.The respondent who owned agricultural lands outside the Municipal limits of Karur created two mortgages over them on 19-7-1947 and 17-11-1947 in favour of the appellant's assignor and the appellant respectively to secure two sums of Rs. 3000 and Rs. 4000 advanced on that day. The mortgage document stipulated payment of interest at nine per cent per an...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Shanker Dolia Vs. M.H. Fernandez and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1963
Reported in: AIR1964Mad238
Venkatadri, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of the small cause suit S. C. No. 257 of 1960 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 900, being the balance of principal and interest alleged to be due on a promissory note dated 29th July 1955, executed by the respondents, who are husband and wife, in favour of the petitioner, for Rs. 800, payable with interest at 15 per cent per annum. The defence to the suit is that the promissory note is not supported by consideration to the full amount mentioned because the suit note is double bond. The respondents have also taken the plea that the suit is barred by limitation so far as the second respondent it concerned.2. The learned Judge who tried the suit found that the suit promissory note was supported only to the extent of Rs. 400 and that the suit was barred by limitation as against the second respondent as the endorsement made by her on 8-11-1958 was more than three years after the suit promissory note and that t...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Shanker Dolia Vs. M.H. Fernadez and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1963
Reported in: (1964)1MLJ60
T. Venkatadri, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the Small Cause Suit S.C. No. 257 of 1960 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 900 being the balance of principal and interest alleged to be due on a promissory note, dated 29th July, 1955, executed by the respondents, who are husband and wife, in favour of the petitioner, for Rs. 800 payable with interest at 15 per cent, per annum. The defence to the suit is that the promissory note is not supported by consideration to the full amount mentioned because the suit note is a double bond. The respondents have also taken the plea that the suit is barred by limitation so far as the second respondent is concerned.2. The learned Judge who tried the suit found that the suit promissory note was supported only to the extent of Rs. 400 and that the suit was barred by limitation as against the second respondent as the endorsement made by her on 8th November, 1958 was more than three years after the suit promissory n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »