Chennai Court August 1964 Judgments
P.M. Batcha and Co. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC59(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The assessment relates to the year 1953-54. The assessee was a dealer in hides and skins. In accordance with the law then in force as laid down by this High Court, it required a licence before a dealer could be assessed to turnover in hides and skins. The dealer, however, did not have a licence since he did not pay the required amount of licence fee but had only paid a part of it. He was found to have a nil turnover, and the assessment file contains a note that the order of nil turnover along with a copy of the 'C' form notice (for refund of the licence fee paid by him) was 'despatched'. The note bears the initial of a clerk dated 20th March, 1957. Subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed the earlier decision of the Madras High Court and held that even unlicensed dealers in hides and skins could be taxed. In accordance with this decision of the Supreme Court, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes took up the case for revision suo motu under Section 32 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Amirthammal Vs. K. Marimuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Mad77; 1967CriLJ205
Natesan, J. (1) This revision case arising out of a proceeding before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Madurai, under S. 488(1), Cri P.C. comes before us, as the matter has been referred to a Bench in few of the conflict of case law and marked divergence of opinion between various High Courts and even in decisions of the same High Court on the question whether the word 'child' in S. 488(1), Cri P.C. in the context means a person of tender years or a person who has not attained the age of majority, that is, person under nonage or expresses only the relationship of a person as the immediate issue of a parent, without reference to age.(2) The application which has given rise to the proceeding was filed by one Amirthammal, the petitioner, herein, of Melapannagaram, Madurai, against her son Marimuthu claiming maintenance for two children of Marimuthu, a son named Balakrishnan and a daughter Ramanujam, both of whom are living with her. It is seen from the order of Court below that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sapt Textile Products (India) Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC267(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The assessees are dealers in cotton waste. Out of their turnover in 1955-56, it was found that they had purchased nearly rupees eighteen lakhs worth of cotton waste and then exported them to buyers outside the Madras State. Relying upon Rule 4-A(iv) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, applicable to the assessment year 1955-56, the authorities of the Sales Tax Department assessed the assessee on the abovesaid turnover. Rule 4-A(iv) states that in the case of cotton including kapas sold to a spinning mill in the State the tax shall be levied on the amount for which it is bought by it, and in the case of cotton which is exported outside the State the tax shall be levied from the dealer who buys it in the State and is the last dealer not exempt from taxation under Section 3(3) on the amount for which the cotton is bought by him.2. After the Central Sales Tax Act came into force cotton was declared as declared goods liable only to a sing...
Tag this Judgment!K.O. Mohamed Sulaiman and Co. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC571(Mad)
ORDERK.S. Ramamurti, J.1. This writ petition raises the question, i.e., if a person happens to be a common partner in two firms, the State, while realising the arrears of sales tax due from one of the firms or from him as a partner thereof, is entitled to seize the movable properties of the other firm, of which also he is a partner, which firm, however, is not liable for the sales tax in question.2. The brief facts are : the dealer, Azimunnissa and one Abdul Majid Sahib, were carrying on business under the name and style of H.M.S. Kurshid & Co., from the year 1954 and the firm was dissolved in 1958. A sum of Rs. 16,724-39 nP. is due from this firm by way of sales tax for the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57. The petitioner is carrying on business as a firm under the name and style of K.O. Mohamed Sulaiman & Co. This is a partnership concern which was started in 1951 and it is still carrying on business as a firm. Azimunnissa, referred to earlier, is also a partner of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!East Asiatic Co. (i) (P) Ltd., Madras Vs. the Workmen Employed in E.A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad221; [1965(10)FLR148]
(1) This is an appeal under Cl. 15, Letters Patent, by the East Asiatic Co. (1) Private Ltd., Madras, referred to hereafter as the "management", against the judgment of Veeraswami J. declining to issue a writ sought by them to quash the award passed by the Labour court at Madras, directing the reinstatement of the worker S. V. Chandran with back wages by the management. S. V. Chandran entered the service of the management as a clerk in its establishment in the year 1950. During the time material to the present dispute, he was employed in the X-ray department at its godown in Royapuram, Chandran was an active member of the Employees Union and he had also been declared as a "protected workman" within the meaning of S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.(2) On 11-7-1960, the employees of the Central Government went on strike with a view to obtain redress of certain grievances. Three days earlier, the President of India had promulgated an Ordinance called the Essential Services Maintenance...
Tag this Judgment!A.M. Safiulla and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1964
Reported in: [1966]17STC79(Mad)
ORDERRamamurti, J.1. The main and the substantial point raised on behalf of the assessee, the petitioner in this revision petition, relates to the question as to whether the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of revision under Section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959 (referred to as the Act in this judgment), is entitled to revise the order of the assessing authority where the latter has not communicated the order of assessment to the assessee.2. The assessee, Messrs A. M. Safiulla & Co., are dealers in hides and skins. In respect of the year of assessment 1954-55, the Assessment Commercial Tax Officer by his order dated 12th October, 1959, held that in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in Noor Mohammed's case [1956] 7 S.T.C. 792 no portion of the turnover was liable to assessment to sales tax, as the petitioner was a non-licensee. As the order of assessment did not result in any tax liability, consequent upon the net turnover being determined as nil, t...
Tag this Judgment!Aravamuda Ayyangar (R.) Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1964
Reported in: (1967)ILLJ259Mad
Veeraswami, J.1. By an order dated 18 June 1960, respondent 1 who is the Commissioner of Police, Madras, terminated the probation of the petitioner as an officiating sub-inspector and reduced his pay in his substantive rank as head constable, by two stages in the time-scale of pay for a period of two years to be spent on duty. This order was the result of a number of charges of the finding corruption framed against the petitioner and that charges (1)(c), (ii)(6), (iii)(&), (iii)(c), (iii)(e), (iii)(i) to (iii)(i), (iv)(b) and (iv)(c) had been proved. The petitioner's appeal and memorial failed. He has now come to this Court asking to quash the order of punishment.2. The validity of the order is questioned on a number of grounds:(i) bias of the enquiry officer,(ii) vagueness of the charges. (iii) in respect of five out of ten charges, two previous statements, which were resiled by two witnesses, formed the sole material on which the finding, that they were proved, rested,(iv) failure of...
Tag this Judgment!M. Abdul Hameed Sahib Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC822(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this revision case is a dealer in cloth, ready-made garments and zari in Vellore. For his turnover in 1959-60 he was assessed by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Vellore II. Out of the assessed turnover he claimed that Rs. 15,808 represented the value of the zari work done on silk cloth amounting to works contract and not sales and therefore exempt from assessment. This claim was negatived by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in appeal. The dealer has now come before this Court in revision.2. The findings of the authorities below show the nature of the transaction. The appellant had with him certain designs embroidered on silk cloth. These embroidered pieces were sold to customers and in the bills the particular description of the embroidery is given and a price is fixed according to the weight of the zari. There was no evidence, which would support the claim of the assessee that the customer suppli...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR307(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered byRAMAMURTHY J. - The State has preferred this revision petition against the order of the Tribunal, allowing certain deductions under section 5(e) and section 5(k) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act.The assessee is Thiru Arooran Sugar Mills Ltd., and the assessment relates to the year 1958-59. The dispute in the revision case relates to two categories of deductions : (a) interest paid by the assessee in respect of the balance of the purchase consideration due by the assessee; (b) interest paid on money borrowed for expenses incurred by the assessee while carrying on its business, i.e., agricultural operations and manufacture of sugar. There is no dispute about other items. The assessee for the purpose of his business had purchased large extends of lands for raising sugarcane for about rupees 58 lakhs out of which after payments so far made there is a balance of about rupees 21 lakhs carrying interest at 6%. The assessee claimed a deduction...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppan Vs. Ponnarasu Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad389
(1) The property in dispute was purchased in 1901 in the name of one Senamuthan. It is not in dispute it was joint family property, Senamuthan had three other brothers and the defendant is the son of one such brothers. Senamuthan died in 1952. His widow, Nagal, sold the property to her son-in-law, one Udayan, who in his turn sold the property to the plaintiff under Ex. A. 1 dated 31-8-1953. Basing his claim on this title deed the plaintiff sought for a declaration and possession of the property form the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that in 1920 there had been a partition amount the members of the family as a result of which this time of property had been allotted to Senamuthan. The defendant contended, on the other hand, that though there was a division in which the properties of the joint family were divided, this particular item of property alone had been left to be enjoyed in common. The further contention on behalf of the defendant was that Senamuthan left a grandson...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »