Chennai Court October 1964 Judgments
The Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC285(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. The Commercial Tax Authorities issued an order demanding the payment to them of a sum of Rs. 8,027-03 which represents collections by way of sales tax by the petitioners. This demand was made under Rule 4-A(ii) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957. It is not in dispute that this sum was collected. But the petitioners claim that this collection represents excess collections which they are under a liability to refund. It was also contended by the petitioners that what the department can realise from the petitioners is only what is lawfully 'due by way of sales tax and not an amount which represents the excess collection. The authorities declined to accept this contention. An appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also failed. 2. The petitioners have now moved this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is contended that the excess collection is in the nature of a contingent deposit which has to be refunded to the persons to whom...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnakolandai Gounder Vs. Thanji Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad497; (1965)2MLJ247
(1) This second appeal raises an interesting question of law about the applicability of S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, Central Act XXX of 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The brief facts of the case are:The properties involved in the suit belonged to one Govindaraja Goundan, who died about 30 years ago. The plaintiff and the first defendant are his brothers while the third defendant is his widow. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant, and he has married the third defendant's brother's daughter. The third defendant who was in possession of her husbands properties conveyed the same to the second defendant under a registered deed of gift, Ex. B. 1, dated 1-6-1948. On 2-9-1958, the plaintiff as the nearest reversioner of Govindaraja Goundan filed the suit for a declaration that the gift deed in favour of the second defendant would not be binding on the reversioner after the death of the widow. Two months later, while the suit was pending, the second defendant...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Ismail Rowther Vs. Mynoon Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad84
1. This revision petition arises out of execution proceedings in O. S. 105 of 1950. The learned District Judge refused to set aside the sale of attached properties in the above execution proceedings, thereby reversing the order of the District Munsif, setting aside the sale on grounds of material irregularity and fraud in the conduct of the sale. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows:(2) The petitioner herein is a third party decreeholder. He had obtained decrees in O. S. 162 of 1960, in S. C. No. 172 of 1951 and in S. C. 455 of 1955 against one Pakkiri Moideen Rowther. The second respondent is another rival decreeholder in O. S. 105 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, against the said Pakkiri Moidden Rowther. The petitioner filed execution petitions in the above said three suits, but he did not pursue the execution proceedings, as he did not comply with the orders of court. While so, the decreeholder in O. S. 105 of 1950,...
Tag this Judgment!K.C.P. Limited Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC156(Mad)
Ramamurti, J.1. The K.C.P. Ltd., is a company carrying on business at 38, Mount Road, with a variety of' business activities, their main business being the manufacture and sale of machinery and parts of machinery and accessories. For their manufacturing operations the company is maintaining a foundry and in 1952 the company purchased two arc furnaces for a sum of Rs. 2,13,512-81. The arc furnaces were purchased by the company for being erected in its factory to facilitate its business of manufacture of machinery and parts thereof. In the account books and the balance sheets of the company the two arc furnaces were classified under the heading 'workshop equipment'. The arc furnaces were however found to be wholly unsuitable for the purpose for which they were purchased and they were therefore sold in 1958 to a purchaser in Calcutta for a sum of Rs. 4,20,000. In the assessment for the year 1958-59 the company contended that it was not liable to pay sales tax on this turnover of Rs. 4,20,...
Tag this Judgment!Brahmayya and Co. Official Liquidators, Hanuman Bank Ltd. (In Liquidat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad247
ORDER(1) Application, by the Official Liquidators of the Hanuman Bank Ltd., Tanjore under Ss. 45-A and 45-B of the Banking Companies Act for permission to sue under O.1, R. 8, C.P.C., on behalf of all the creditors of Dewan Bahadur N. Swaminatha Iyer and his estate for a declaration that the release deed executed by Dewan Bahadur N. Swaminatha Iyer dated 27-7-1945 is void against the Hanuman Bank Ltd. (in liquidation) and all other creditors and for directing the respondents, who are the sons of the late Dewan Bahadur N. Swaminatha Iyer, to compensate the Hanuman Bank Ltd., (in liquidation) in respect of the losses caused by the acts of misfeasance and breach of trust committed by their father to the extent of Rs. 14,08,647, and for costs.(2) The Hanuman Bank Ltd., Tanjore was wound up on a creditor's petition dated 26-7-1947 by an order passed by this court on 5-11-1947. Messrs. Brahmayya and Co., have been appointed Official Liquidators by an order of this court dated 12-1-1948. The ...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Abdul Rahim and Mohamed Ibrahim and Co., Pernambut Vs. Deputy Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad524; (1965)2MLJ195; [1965]16STC290(Mad)
ORDER(1) The point for decision in this writ petition is a short one. It is the propriety of levy of interest for default, in payment of arrears of sales tax, under Section 21(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959, in relation to an arrears of sales tax, which accrued before that Act came into force.(2) A few facts will be helpful to understand the question raised for decision in this case. For the year 1950-51 the petitioner was assessed to sales tax, by an order of the assessing authority, passed on 29-3-1952. The demand notice for the tax thus levied, was served on him on 9-4-1952. The demand notice specified a period of 21 days for making the payment. In the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939 then in force there was no provision for levy of any interest by way of penalty on tax not paid within the time specified in the notice of demand. In the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959, however, S. 24(3) had such a provision in the following terms:'If the tax assessed under this ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Krishnamurthy Vs. Chief Engineer, Southern Railway, P.T. Madras and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Mad315; [1966(12)FLR311]; (1966)IILLJ697Mad
(1) The appellant seeks to institute this appeal from the judgment of Srinivasan, J. in W. P. 120 of 1962, under the following circumstances. The appellant was a senior clerk in the Southern Railway in 1958, when disciplinary proceedings were instated against him on an averment that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification in a sum of Rs. 30 from one Kulasekharan, upon a promise to obtain a post for threat individual in railway service. Prior to the disciplinary proceedings, a complaint had been made to the police, which resulted in the prosecution of the petitioner for an alleged offence under S. 161, I.P.C. read with certain provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The writ petitioner was convicted, and, ultimately, acquitted, but, on a technical ground relating to the processual law. It is sufficient here to set forth the following extract from the judgment of Somasundaram, J. who dealt with the matter:--"The result is that the accused (appellant) was undoubtedly in...
Tag this Judgment!Chattanatha Karayalar Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad220
(1) This petition raises the question of the constitutional validity of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 3 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of S. 9 of the Travancore Cochin Electricity Duty Act, 1950 and of sub-rule (i) of Rule 3 of the Travancore Cochin Electricity Duty Act 1950. A further question also is raised that the vires of the said sub-rule is covered by a judgment of the District Court, Trivandrum in O.S. 104 of 1955 on its file, in which the petitioner was the plaintiff and the Travancore-Cochin State was the defendant, and that the judgment operates as res judicata and is binding on the State of Madras.(2) The petitioner was a licencee for distribution of electricity in Shencottah taluk under a licence initially issued by the then Travancore-Cochin Government in 1114 M.E. and has been distributing electricity in that taluk under a licence, subsequently issued by the Travancore-Cochin Government under S. 3(3) of the Travancore-Cochin Electricity Duty Act, 1950. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Palghat Municipal Council Vs. National Motor Works Ltd., Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Mad31; (1965)2MLJ107
ORDER(1) This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the District Judge, Coimbatore, in dismissing an application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for excusing the delay of 259 days in presenting a civil miscellaneous appeal, against the order passed by the Sub-Court, Palghat, in E.P. 154 of 1959.(2) The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this petition are, the petitioner is a decreeholder in O. S. 28 of 1947 on the file of the Sub-Court, Palghat, for about Rs. 13000. At the instance of the decreeholder, the decree was transmitted to Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for execution. The decree-holder then filed E.P. 154 of 1959 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, for execution. When an objection was taken by the judgment debtor, the respondent herein that the petition was barred by limitation, the petition was dismissed.(3) The petitioner filed an appeal straight to the High Court, Madras, as he was under the impression that, as the amount in the execution p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pachakutty Thondampiriar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ826
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The accused in C. C. No. 280 of 1962, on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Pudukottai, is the petitioner. He was convicted under Section 215, I. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in appeal, and the accused has tiled the present revision case.2. The prosecution case against the accused is briefly this, P. Ws. 1 and 2 are brothers-in-law. P. W. 2 lives in a village called Theethanipatti, P. W. 1 had gone to Theethanipatti in a bullock cart and stayed there for some days. His bulls were stolen on the night of 12-5-1982. On the morning of 13-5-1982, P. W. 1 and his brother-in-law, P. W. 2 went in search of the missing bulls. On the way they met the accused and informed him about the theft. The accused thereupon assured P. W. 1, that he need not fear and that if Rs. 100 were paid to him, the bull...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›