Chennai Court August 1964 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M.U. Varghese Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad7; [1965]16STC184(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.(1) The turnover in dispute in this case is Rs. 60842, and odd, which, according to the view of the assessing authority, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, represented the value of finished garments sold by the assessee. The assessee has got a stock of cloth in his premises. He is also a tailor skilled in stitching garments. Customers go to him, select a cloth, settle its price and also, settle the stitching charges, and then an order is prepared in a standardised order book showing the quality, the quantity and the price of the cloth selected and also the stitching charges, separately. The two orders are found in the same order sheet. An advance is taken from the customer. Then the assessee stitches the clothes and then prepares a bill for the customer, wherein the price of the cloth and the tailoring charges are separately shown and the advance deducted. In the view of the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal, the simple fact that the c...
Sinnakaruppa Gounder Vs. M. Karuppuswami Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad506
(1) The short point for determination in this appeal is whether an option to re-purchase reserved to the vendor under his conveyance can be validly assigned. Govindammal, the original owner of the property which forms the subject-matter of this litigation, executed a sale of it on 4-4-1953 in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rupees 12000. Three days later and as a part of the same transaction, the latter executed in favour of the vendor an agreement to reconvey the property for the same consideration if it were paid within a period of five years therefrom. It is not disputed that the agreement should be construed as conferring on the vendor an option to repurchase the property and it is not an independent agreement for sale.(2) On 5-4-1958, Govindammal assigned her rights under the above agreement to the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 23000 a part of which viz., Rs. 12000 being reserved with him for payment to the appellant to obtain the property back. The respondent then c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›