Chennai Court August 1964 Judgments
Shanmugha Perayyar Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad416; (1965)1MLJ311
(1) The State Government passed G. O. Ms. No. 2773 Home, dated 3-10-1958, extending the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 to Odacheri Chatram and water Pandal charity at Odacheri village in Tiruthuraipundi taluk. The notification to that effect followed certain findings by the State Government on charges of improper administration of the endowment. The petitioner instituted O. S. No. 250 of 1959 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Tiruthuraipundi for a declaration that the notification was without jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed in June 1960 and the appeal arising therefrom also failed on 21-8-1961. It appears, a second appeal, which was filed, was dismissed by this court even at the admission stage. This petition was tiled in January 1962, apparently after disposal of the second appeal, to quash the notification.(2) The notification was mad by the State Government in exercise of powers vested in it by S. 3 of the Madras Hin...
Tag this Judgment!A.A. Muthuswamy Raja Vs. the Kadayanallur Union Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad289
(1) Because of a similar point for consideration, these two petitions have been heard together. The question relates to the propriety of the Kadayanallur Panchayat and the Vasudevanallur Panchayat, which are the respondents, enhancing the licence fee for the private weekly market of each of the petitioners. The petitioners say that the enhancement is totally disproportionate to the value of service rendered by the Panchayats and is therefore, illegal. The petitioner in W. P. 633 of 1962 is the owner of a private weekly market at Nainaragaran village. He would say that the weekly market was functioning from prior to 1802, he purchased the weekly market in 1957 and was conducting the market under licences issued by the District Board every year. For 1959-60, the fee levied was a sum of Rs. 497-42. The quantum of the fee levied would appear to have been disputed, which eventually led to G. O. Ms. 1935, Local Administration, dated November 13, 1959. Based on the order of the State Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Vd. M. Rm. M. Rm. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1964
Reported in: [1965]55ITR147(Mad)
The judgment of the court was delivered bySRINIVASAN J. - The two questions that stand referred to us are these :'(I) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, reassment made on the assessee under section 34 of the Act is valid in law for 1952-53 to 1954-55 (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inclusion of the share income of the minor in the hands of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 16(3) of the Act is valid in law notwithstanding that the assessment is made on the minor represented by his guardian ?'It is admitted case that the assessee has three minor sons. It is also undisputed that these minor sons have been admitted to the benefits of a partnership in which the assessee is a partner. Originally, the assessments in respect of these assessment years were made on the assessee as an individual. The Income-tax Officer did not apply section 16(3) of the Act, which on the bare statement of the position as above, was clea...
Tag this Judgment!Bagiammal Vs. Kamalammal and anr
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad205
(1) The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. The courts below have given diverse findings on the same question fact. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's half share in the suit properties, which admittedly belonged to one Ramaswami alias Kannappan. The case of the plaintiff, who is the mother of the deceased Ramaswami, is that her son Ramaswami died intestate on 13-7-1956, leaving besides her, his widow-Kamalammal, the first defendant in the suit. The second defendant in the suit is an alience of the suit properties from the widow. The plaintiff's right, it goes without saying, is based upon h the provisions of Act 30 of 1956, which came into force on 17-6-1956. Along with the plaint, a death register extract was filed. In the written statement by the first defendant, while putting the plaintiff to proof that Ramaswami died on 13-7-1956, the first defendant also stated that he died on May 1956. In her evidence, the plaintiff stated th...
Tag this Judgment!F.K. Hasheeb and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1964
Reported in: [1966]17STC38(Mad)
ORDERRamamurti, J.1. The main point that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the assessment made by the assessing authority on 22nd October, 1959, could be modified only by the very assessing authority under Section 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) on the basis of an escaped turnover or whether the Deputy Commissioner is entitled to exercise his powers of revision under Section 32 of the Act, on the basis that the order of the initial assessing authority is vitiated by errors of fact or law as escaped assessment.2. The petitioners are dealers in hides and skins and the dispute relates to the assessment of their dealings for the assessment year 1954-55. By his order dated 22nd October, 1959, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, III, Madras City, determined the net turnover of the petitioners at about Rs. 12,866-7-7, after holding that as the petitioners are unlicensed dealers, the turnover relating to the purchase val...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Tiruchengode Co-operative Marketing Society Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC760(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This is a revision case filed by the State of Madras against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 297 of 1962. The assessee is the Tiruchengode Co-operative Marketing Society, and we are told that it has got nearly 15,000 members on its rolls. For the year 1959-60 the taxable turnover of the assessee as determined by the Commercial Tax Officer, Salem, was Rs. 12,49,000 odd. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Salem, claiming that a sum of Rs. 12,06,000 odd represented sales of agricultural produce of its members and that those sales were entitled to exemption from assessment under the proviso to Section 2(r) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner negatived the claim for exemption. The assessee then appealed to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal disputing the same turnover on the ground that it was entitled to exemption under the proviso to Section 2(r). In the grounds of appeal to ...
Tag this Judgment!K.J. Lingam and anr. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC410(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This revision case is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 294 of 1962.2. The assessees are dealers in motor vehicles and spare parts. We are now concerned in the present revision case with motor vehicles which the assessees purchased at Avadi within the Madras State from the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals, subsequently broke them into parts and sold them. These spare parts are assessable under the Madras General Sales Tax Act at the point of the first sale in this State. Treating the assessees as dealers effecting the first sale of the aforesaid articles, the department assessed them to sales tax. This part of the turnover comes to Rs. 1,51,589. The contention of the assessees before the department as well as before the Tribunal was that the first seller in regard to the above turnover was the Director-General of Supplies and Disposals. It is common ground that these motor vehicles, which were sold by the Director-Gene...
Tag this Judgment!Palanithurai Mudikondar Vs. Veerappa thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad64
(1) One Rangavellala Thevar, the plaintiff's grandfather's brother executed a mortgage in favour of one Sabhapathi Patharin 1882.The properties survived to the undivided brother of Rangavellala Thevar, Vaithi.Vaithi's son is Panchanatha Thevar.Panchanatha had two sons, one Marudiah and the plaintiff. Marudiah died issueless, so that the plaintiff claimed that he is the sole surviving member of the family who is entitled to the equity of redemption.(2) Before his death, this Marudiah Thevar sold the property to the fifth defendant in 1920. The mortgage right changed hands in the mortgagee's family in the following manner.After the death of the original mortgagee Sabhapathi Pathar, his undivided brother Arunachala was in enjoyment of the property.In a will executed by him, he is said to have admitted that the family owned only a mortgage right in the property.Defendants 1 to 3 became entitled under the will.That was in 1903.In 1922, defendants 1 to 3 executed a mortgage in favour of one...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Ayodhya Naidu Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad349; (1965)1MLJ308
ORDER1. The petitioner is he owner of a lorry bearing registration No. MDS 2991, and he is plying it as a public goods carrier vehicle s his occupation. By this petition he seeks a rule forbidding the State of Madras, the respondent, form giving effect to the provisions of the Madras Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, Act IX of 1962. The Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931, by S. 4(1) provides that the State Government may, by notification in he official Gazette from time to time, direct that a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle using any public road in the State of Madras. But the sub-section requires the notification to specify the rates at which and the quarter from which the tax shall be levied. There is a proviso to the effect that the rates shall not exceed the maximum specified in Sch.. II. In that schedule item 2 relates to goods vehicles and sub-item 2 relates to goods vehicles and sub-item (I) rates to vehicles exceeding 150 cwt, but not exceeding 180 cwt., in weigh...
Tag this Judgment!Periathambi Mudaliar Vs. Special Tahsildar (L.A.) Planning Scheme, Coi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad328
ORDER1. The petition is to quash the proceedings taken by the respondent for compulsory acquisition of one acre and 75 cents out of two acres 86 cents comprised in S. No. 577/1 in Kumarapalayam village Coimbatore Taluk. It appears that the notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 2-5-1962. A declaration under S. 6 was published on 23-5-1962. The acquisition was said to be for the purpose of rehabilitation of slum dwellers in slaughter house area and certain other areas. The main ground on which the validity of the proceedings is questioned is that the respondent arbitrarily invoked the power to dispense with the application of S. 5-A. If this contention is well founded, there is not doubt the land-acquisition proceedings upto the stage of the notification under S. 4(1) should be quashed.(2) This court has repeatedly held that, if the Collector or the Government opined that the matter was urgent, the position cannot be reviewed as is an appeal. But where a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »