Chennai Court July 1964 Judgments
In Re: Palaniswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ370
ORDERAnantanarayanan, J.1. This revision involves an interesting point whether, under the Madras Prohibition Act as enacted and in the form in which it stands today, a person can be properly convicted under Section 4(1)(j) for consumption of illicit liquor, without the prosecution discharging the burden of proof that the liquor that he had consumed was prohibited, and not of some unprohibited variety. This is not a new problem, and this matter has come up before the courts more than once. I had occasion to deal' with it in Periasami Gounder, in re, 1960 MWN 84 wherein I have referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pesikaka v. State of Bombay 1954 MWN 985 and also to the decision, Palani Goundar v. State : AIR1957Mad546 . In Rathinam v. State 1960 MWN 88 omasundaram J. held, similarly, that the symptoms of dilation of pupils, sluggish reaction of pupils to light, smell of alchohol in the breath, congestion of eyes etc, were not at all conclusive on the point that the liquor con...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. S.A. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad218
(1) This petition is filed by the defendant in the suit whose application for leave to defend the suit whose application for leave to defend the suit on a promissory note was disallowed. The respondent laid the suit on the basis of a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 4200 executed by the defendant-petitioner on 23-11-1962 in his favour. When notice was served on the defendant, he filed an application under O. XXXVII Rule 3 praying for leave to defend. He admitted that he executed the promissory note, but contended that the amount represented the loss that the had incurred in gambling and therefore the promissory note was not enforceable. The trial court holding that the plea put forward by the petitioner would not make it incumbent on the plaintiff-respondent to prove consideration for the promissory note held that the petitioner was not entitled for leave to defend. The trial court also held after a discussion of the available materials on record that the defendant had not made out pr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramadoss Vs. Muniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad452; 1965CriLJ514
ORDER(1) The point for consideration in this revision proceeding is a very simple one, and it really depends upon the application of the ingredients of cheating, as defined in Section 415 I.P.C., to the facts as found by the learned Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate. I take it that, as found by the Magistrate, Muniammal (complaint) was a subscriber to two chit funds, both of which were conducted by the revision petitioner (Ramadoss), related to her as nephew. I further take it that, in one of these chit funds, Muniammal (P.W. 1) was the highest bidder at the auction, and that, in accordance with the practice of these funds, in accordance with the practice of these funds, the accused paid her the chit prize or accumulated money. It is the definite finding of the learned magistrate, with which this court will not ordinarily interfere in criminal revision, that there was also another chit fund organised or run by the accused, that Muniammal (P.W. 1), was subscribing to that chit fund...
Tag this Judgment!Zackria Sons Private Limited Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC136(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This revision case is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, in T.A. No. 1449 of 1961. The assessee is Messrs Zackria Sons Private Limited, Government and Public Auctioneers in Madras. They were engaged by the authorities of the Women's Christian College, Madras, to auction the superstructure of a building belonging to the college called 'Riverlands Bungalow'. The terms of the agreement are found in the conditions of sale announced by the auctioneers and we will presently refer to them. The auction was held on 1st November, 1959, and the highest bidder was Madar Sahib for Rs. 18,500. A bill was issued to the auction purchaser for the amount less the advance deposited on the date of auction and the auctioneers received the amount from the bidder in full. The department assessed the auctioneers on the above-said bid price as representing a sale and regarding the auctioneers as 'dealers'. The appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC827(Mad)
Ramamurti, J.1. The petitioner in the tax revision case is Richardson and Cruddas Ltd., a limited liability company, carrying on business in structural engineering work, and as contractors at the First Line Beach, Madras. It is admitted that in the course of its business the petitioner-company fabricates and erects heavy steel structures on behalf of its customers in connection with the construction of sugar factories, etc. It is also admitted that in the course of its business the petitioner-company receives order for the manufacture, fabrication and installation of cooling apparatus, like air coolers, bottle coolers, which are specially manufactured according to the special requirements and specifications of the customers and installed in the latter's premises by the use of skill and labour bestowed by experienced mechanics and specialists engineers of the petitioner-company.2. In this revision petition, which relates to the assessment year 1957-58, the dispute relates to three items...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Krishnaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1964
Reported in: 1965CriLJ42
Natesan, J.1. One Krishnaswami Naicker of Muthalapuram Kottur, Tirunelveli Dt., who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302, I. P. C. for the murder of Kandaswami Naicker of the same place is the appellant.2. At the Sessions along with the appellant, his elder brother, one Perumal alias Perumalswami Naicker, was also charged under Section 323, I. P. C. But he was found not guilty and acquitted. From the evidence let in by the prosecution, the following facts emerge.3. The sister of the accused was the second wife of one Sangava Naicker, brother of the deceased, and by reason of the refusal by the said Sangava Naicker and the deceased to give the daughter of the former by his first wife in marriage to the second accused, the relationship between the two families was somewhat strained. On the day prior to the occurrence, when the deceased, P. W. 8 and others were chatting near a shop, the second accused was walking into the shop and the deceased appear...
Tag this Judgment!Projection of India Pictures Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC357(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The dispute before us relates to the assessment of the assessee on sales effected by him in the year of assessment on two items, namely, (1) sale of a cinema projector for Rs. 1,000 and (2) sale of the negative film of 'Tour of Mahatma Gandhi' sold to Gandhi Samarak Nidhi for Rs. 8,000. The business in which the assessee is engaged is as a dealer in cinematographic goods. It is common ground that the nature of the business activity he is engaged in involves the following transactions. He used to purchase from abroad film projectors and sell them. He used to take educational films and exhibit them for remuneration in schools and other institutions with the help of some of his projectors. There was a market for the positives of such films taken by him, and he used to sell the positives and retain the negatives for some years.2. In regard to the first item, the contention of the assessee before the assessment authorities was that the concerned film projector was purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madras Vs. Martinammal Machado
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad182; [1964]54ITR687(Mad)
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.(1) The following question, which arose in the course of the assessment to Wealth Tax of the Assessee for the year 1959-60, has been referred for our opinion under S. 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act. 1957:'Whether in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the leasehold interest of the assessee in the salt pans is an asset within the meaning of section 2(e)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and its value includible in the net wealth of the assessee?'(2) for the assessment year in question, the assessee made a return that on the valuation dated 31-3-1959, her net wealth was Rs. 4,95,977/-. In making that return, she did not put any value on the leasehold interest she possessed in certain salt pans. By an agreement dated 7-5-1942 the Central Government had granted a lease in favour of the assessee in respect of a number of salt pans in Milavittan Village, near Tuticorin. The lease was to endure for a period of twenty-five years. The Wealth Tax Officer valued tha...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. M.P.V. Sundararamier and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1964
Reported in: [1966]18STC516(Mad)
K. Srinivasan, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of Veeraswami, J., rendered in applications under Article 226. The matter arises thus. The respondent-company are dealers in cotton yarn, carrying on business with headquarters at Madras and branches in Madurai and Coimbatore. The yarn in which they deal consists of yarn purchased locally as well as imported. For five assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1953-54, they submitted returns and were assessed to sales tax on those returns. Now, it appears that at the time of the preparation of the appeal memorandum in connection with the order of assessment for 1954-55, the dealers discovered that their returns for the years in question were erroneous, in that in the categories of sales that were brought to tax, the sales of yarn purchased by them locally as well as the transfer of cotton yarn from headquarters to the branches were included. It is not in dispute that sale of cotton yarn is taxable at a sin...
Tag this Judgment!Kishenlal Roopchand and Company Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC802(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The petitioners, Messrs Kishenlal Roop-chand and Company, who are dealers in piece-goods at Madras, were assessed to sales tax in respect of their turnover for 1957-58. The dispute relates to a portion of their turnover of Rs. 1,50,000. In the view of the department, these transactions represented sales effected in this State by a non-resident dealer of Ahmedabad by name Lal-chand Misrilal & Co., in which the Madras dealers, the assessees, were concerned as agents within the meaning of Section 14-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939 and consequently they were liable to be assessed on this part of the turnover. This view was confirmed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeal, and the assessees have come before this Court in revision.2. The first point to be determined is the nature of the transaction. The Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer took extracts from the register of inward consignments at Salt Cotaurs Railway goods shed in Madras C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »