Chennai Court September 1964 Judgments
B.V. Bhatta Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1964
Reported in: [1965]16STC441(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. For the assessment year 1959-60, the assessee (revision petitioner before us), a dealer in radios and electrical goods at Singaratope, Tiruchirapalli, was assessed inter alia for the following items of turnover, which are now in dispute :--Rs. Np.1. Second sales of radios bought fromcustomers in 1959-60 ... 14,924-732. Photo house studio receipts ... 2,023-302. During the year of assessment, under item 5 of the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, radios were assessable at the point of first sale in the State at the rate of 7 per cent. The assessee was able to show the prior history of his transactions in second-hand radios, from which it appeared that Rs. 4,619 represented really second sales. But in regard to the balance, he was unable to substantiate his contention, and therefore he was assessed as the first dealer in respect of the balance. This is item (I) above. In regard to the second item, the contention of the dealer (assessee) was that ...
Tag this Judgment!Karaikal Castings and Rolling Mills and the Karaikal Metal Industries, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad453
ORDER(1) The petitioner is the proprietor of the Karaikal Castings and Rolling Mills and the Karaikal Metal Industries at Karaikal, in the Union territory of Pondicherry. He obtained a licence under the Non-Ferrous Metals Control Order 1958, an order issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under the terms of the licence, he had to comply with certain conditions regarding the stocking and disposal of several non-ferrous metals which are specified in the Non-Ferrous Metals Control Order, 1958. The authorities had reason to believe that he had not disposed of surplus stocks in the manner required under the licence. So the Government of Pondicherry through its Secretary, Planning and Development department., issued a notice to the petitioner on 17-4-1964 as to why action should not be taken against him for violation of the terms of the licence issued under the Non-Ferrous Metals Control Order and why th...
Tag this Judgment!Amarchand Sobhachand Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1964
Reported in: [1965]56ITR594(Mad)
S. RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J. - This reference arises out of the assessment for the year 1953-54 of Messrs. Amarchand Sobhachand, a partnership concern carrying on business at Madras as chemista dn druggists. They did business in camphor, mercury and other products and in making forward contracts in artificial silk yarn. Another branch of the firms activity was in money-lending. The accounts of the business were kept on the mercantile basis. For the assessment year 1953-54, the year of account was the previous Samwat year 2008, which ended on October 18, 1952. During that year, the assessee wrote off sum of Rs. 2,68,385 as bad debt in its money-lending business. This sum represented the entire balance due in respect of its dealings with another firm at Bombay, Bojaji Sobhachand. The assessee claimed a deduction in respect of the amount aforesaid in the course of the assessment for the year referred to above. To appreciate the justification for the claim a few more facts have to be mentioned...
Tag this Judgment!Vittaldas Jagannathadas and anr. Vs. the Regional Provident Fund Commi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad508
ORDER(1) This Writ proceeding by the managing partners of the M/s. Lakshmibai Jagannathadas and Co., praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or other suitable writ inhibiting the 1st respondent, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, form collecting form the writ petitioners contributions towards the Employees' Provident Fund, involves a certain question of considerable significance and interest, bearing upon the Industrial Law. The matter is not res integra, and there are several decisions available at the Calcutta, Punjab and Kerala High Courts, s well as one reported decision of Srinivasan J., and two unreported decisions of the same learned Judge. There are also available other decisions of this Court which relate to he Industrial Disputes Act and not to the Employees' Provident Funds Act 19 of 1952, which is the legislation that now concerns us, but which are helpful as enunciating the basic principle involved.(2) Since the very formulation of that principles requires a backgro...
Tag this Judgment!The Anamalais Bus Transports (P) Ltd., Pollachi Vs. Tiruppur Karurtran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad470
1. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, approved, on 10-3-1959, opening of an express route, Coimbatore to Palani with two buses. The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai in whose jurisdiction a portion of the route lies gave its concurrence to it. By Notification dated 14-5-1960, applications were invited for grant of two permits as express service. Forty two applications were received, which were published under S. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. When the applications were taken up for consideration on 27-10-1960, they were adjourned as, in the meantime, the State Transport Department had commenced an express service between Coimbatore and Nagarcoil with two buses on which the route Coimbatore to Palani entirely overlapped. The State Government added two more buses on this express route and approved a scheme of running a total of eight buses on the route Coimbatore to Nagarcoil. Another route Coimbatore to Udumalpet via Kinathukadavu and Pollachi which was opened subsequen...
Tag this Judgment!Nachiappan and ors. Vs. P.R. Muthiah Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad77
1. This appeal by the plaintiff's is directed only against the denial of mesne profits for part of the period for which they were claimed. The following facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff's purchased the equity of redemption from the mortgagors. In O. P. 39 of 1948, under S. 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, they made the deposit of the mortgage amount of Rs. 630 on 12-8-1948. Presumably, on the refusal of the mortgagee to receive the amount, that petition was dismissed on 12-11-1948. But the mortgage amount continued to be in deposit in court. Thereafter, in 1949, they filed a suit for redemption. A preliminary decree was passed therein in 1951. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiffs deposited the mortgage amount to the credit of the suit on 25-3-1952. The final disposal of that redemption. The final disposal of that redemption suit was only in 1958, for, against the preliminary decree, there was an appeal and a further appeal which resulted in a remand, after which it was disposed...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmani Ammal Vs. P.M. Chandrsekhara Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1967Mad297; (1965)1MLJ405
ORDER1. The question, which has been raised by the Office, come up frequently, and accordingly it will be useful to give what appears to me be the correct interpretation of the rules bearing on the question. The question is about the scale of an advocate's fees in a mortgage suit where the mortgagor-defendants filed a written statement, the issues were framed and the defendants after absenting themselves initially, appeared again and eventually they did not force the trial to the end and a preliminary decree was passed by consent on 3rd April 1964, securing to the plaintiff' a sum of Rs. 21, 314 and costs to be taxed by the office. In the taxation of the cost, the plaintiff's lawyer has claimed fees under Order 5, rule 2(1)(c) of the High Court Fees Rules 1956, but the advocate for the defendants contends that fees could be allowed only under Order 5, R. 2(1)(b) of the High Court Fees Rules. It is necessary to quote the relevant portions of Order 5, rule 2(1):'......... (a) where the s...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Administrator to the Estate of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad383; [1965]57ITR478(Mad); (1965)1MLJ97
Srinivasan, J. (1) The question referred for the decision of this Court is:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 53,553 and Rs. 12,250 were assessable to income-tax in the hands of the assessee 'administrator to the estate of L. D. Miller' in the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, respectively?':One Mr. Miller was a partner in Messrs. King and Partridge, a firm of solicitors. The deed of partnership provided that it was to enure for a minimum period of three years form 1-4-1956. One of the clauses of the partnership deed made provision in the case of the retirement or death of a partner. This clause read thus:'If any partner shall retire for reasons of ill health or otherwise in accordance with these presents, or shall die during the subsistence of the partnership, then the partner so retiring, or in the case of death, his legal personal representative, shall be entitled to draw a share equivalent tot his immediately previous (or last) percentag...
Tag this Judgment!Merla Jagannayakulu Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1964
Reported in: AIR1965Mad219; (1965)1MLJ320
(1) The fourth respondents on the ground that he had been retrenched from the service of the fifth respondent of which the petitioner was a partner applied to the Labour Court, Madras under S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for computation of the benefits of retrenchment compensation, notice pay and arrears of wages. The fifth respondent was a firm of partnership constituted on or about 25-9-1958. On 12-9-1959, the petitioner went out of the firm and ceased to be a partner, as he claims. The first firm was engaged in production of a picture by name "Samajam" in Telugu. The fourth respondent claimed that he was employed in the from April 1958 to December 1959, and, on 31-12-1959, the management terminated his service without any reason and without any notice. He claimed Rs. 200 as retrenchment compensation, another sum of Rs. 200 in lieu of notice, the sum being his salary for a month and Rs. 4200 as arrears of salary from April 1958 to December 1959. The labour Court allowed ...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Basheer Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1964
Reported in: AIR1966Mad325; 1966CriLJ1023; (1965)2MLJ325
(1) This appeal comes before us on a reference by Kunhamed Kutti J. The learned Judge felt a doubt with regard to the proper interpretation of rule 22 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, though in two earlier judgments of single judges of this court, the view had been taken that the Rule is not mandatory in the sense that noncompliance therewith would vitiate the prosecution proceedings. For that reason that this question is one which is likely to arise frequently the matter has been posted before a Bench.(2) The petitioner was prosecuted under Ss. 7 and 16(1) read with S. 2(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1957. The Food inspector, who is the complainant seized a certain quantity of milk from the petitioner and divided the milk into three parts, one of which was handed over to the petitioner and one part sent to the Government Analyst. The report of the analyst showed that the milk contained 13 per cent of added water. The Sub-Divisional...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »