Chennai Court June 1965 Judgments
East India Corporation Ltd., Madurai Vs. State of Madras, Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad404; [1965]16STC1067(Mad)
(1) This is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue, which it made under S. 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1959, read with S. 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellant, who was a dealer in cotton was assessed to tax for the year 1957-58 on a turnover of Rs. 12,76,440-27p. by an order of the Assessment Commercial Tax officer, Madurai dated 25-8-1960. By a notice dated 21-7-1964, the Board of Revenue called upon the dealer, purporting to exercise jurisdiction under S. 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, to show cause why the turnover relating to sales exigible to tax should not be refixed at Rs. 1,79,78,330-19p. Eventually, after considering the objections of the dealer, the Board finally refixed the turnover liable to tax at Rs. 1,53,07,997-75 p. inclusive of the turnover which had been originally brought to tax. The Board has levied the tax on this turnover under S. 5-A(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1939, read with rule 4-A(iv) of the Madras ...
Tag this Judgment!Late A.Y. Arulanandaswami Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Excess ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad94
Srinivasan, J. 1. The assessee, late Arulanandaswami Nadar, who was carrying abkari business at Thanjavur took up certain military contracts at Renigunta in the year 1943. Work of the value of nearly Rs. ten lakhs was to be completed within three months from 28-3-1943. It could not so be completed and it dragged on for eleven months till 25-3-1944. There appear to have been certain alterations in the works to be carried out. There was also a dispute between the assessee and the Military Department with regard to the rates, particularly with reference to those works which were not covered by the contract. These deviations from the original contract were the subject-matter of a reference to an arbitrator, who held that the assessee was entitled to certain compensation. Payments were made from the date of the contract or shortly thereafter up to the year ending 31st March, 1948. The total of such receipts by the assessee came to Rs. 7,65,658. In addition thereto, the Military Department h...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Goundar and anr. Vs. Baghyammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad457
1. The third and fourth defendants are the appellants from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem by which he confirmed the decree of the trial Court for maintenance in favour of the plaintiff with a charge over the plaint A and B Schedule properties except for the modification he made of the quantum of maintenance. On 11th February, 1959, the first defendant who is the husband of the plaintiff, sold the plaint A Schedule properties to the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 22,500, On 16th December, 1959, the plaintiff sued her husband for maintenance and for a charge over the A and B Schedule properties in respect of it.2. Mr. Ramamurti Iyer contends that the Courts below were wrong in granting a charge in favour of the plaintiff over the plaint A Schedule properties. He says that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which is an amending and codifying law on the subject of maintenance, lays down the entire law as to that matter so that the right to follow property ali...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswamy Goundar and anr. Vs. Baghyammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ579
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The third and fourth defendants are the appellants from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Salem by which he confirmed the decree of the trial Court for maintenance in favour of the plaintiff with a charge over the plaint A and B Schedule properties except for the modification he made of the quantum of maintenance. On 11th February, 1959, the first defendant who is the husband of the plaintiff, sold the plaint A Schedule properties to the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 22,500, On 16th December, 1959, the plaintiff sued her husband for maintenance and for a charge over the A and B Schedule properties in respect of it.2. Mr. Ramamurti Iyer contends that the Courts below were wrong in granting a charge in favour of the plaintiff over the plaint A Schedule properties. He says that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which is an amending and codifying law on the subject of maintenance, lays down the entire law as to that matter so that the right to fo...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation of Madras Vs. Srimathi Ch. Balamoney and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1965
Reported in: (1966)2MLJ567
ORDERM. Natesan, J.1. These revisions are preferred by the Corporation of Madras against an order of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, rejecting in limine the five appeals preferred by the Corporation against an order of the Taxation Appeals Committee of the Corporation.2. With reference to assessment of property tax there were appeals before the Taxation Appeals Committee by the owners and according to the Corporation several important questions arose for consideration therein. There was a difference of view as to the assessment between the Chairman of the Committee, the Chairman being a judicial officer, and the other two members of the Committee who were members of the Corporation. The majority view prevailed and the Commissioner in the view that he could not get the particular assessment rectified in any other way preferred the appeals in question under Rule 15 of the Taxation Rules of the Madras City Municipal Act. Objection was taken by the assessee to the maintaina...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Gounder and ors. Vs. Ramana Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad308
(1) The two sons and wife of the judgment debtor in O.S. 430 of 1960 are the appellants in this second appeal. O.S. 430 of 1960 was filed by the respondent herein against the father of the present appellants 1 and 2. A decree was passed against the father on 6-9-1960. The decree-holder took out execution in E.P. 1189 of 1962 on 31-10-1962 against the legal representatives of the judgment debtor, as the judgment debtor died after the passing of the decree. The legal representatives of the judgment debtor, appellants 1 to 3, filed E.A. 668 of 1963 alleging that the decree against their father was obtained by fraud and collusion and that the decree is not valid and executable. In July 1963 the appellants herein filed E.A. 1245 of 1963 praying for conversion of their application E.P. 668 of 1963 into a suit. The trial Court directed in the conversion. But on appeal by the decree-holder the lower-appellate court set aside the order of the executing court and refused conversion. This C.M.S.A...
Tag this Judgment!Menghraj thekurdas Vs. the Accommodation Controller, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1966Mad172; (1965)2MLJ545
ORDER(1) Premises No. 16, New Avadi Road, Kilpauk, appears to have been taken over by the Government and allotted to a Government servant in the year 1952. In 1963, the petitioner purchase this premises from the previous owner. At that time, the first floor was occupied by one C. K. Nair and the ground floor by one Mrs. Sumati. The petitioner sought the release of the premises for the occupation of his son. He was informed that C. K. Nair was Government servant and the first floor had been allotted to him by the Government. On a notice issued by him to the other tenant, she vacated the premises and handed over the key to the Accommodation Controller. Thereafter, the petitioner sought the release of the entire premises, but he was informed by the Accommodation Controller that the ground floor was being allotted to another Government servant. The petition originally proceeded on the basis that such an order of allotment had been made ten days after the intimation of the vacancy by Mrs. S...
Tag this Judgment!Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd. Vs. A.C.K. Krishnaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1965
Reported in: AIR1967Mad337; [1968]69ITR361(Mad); (1965)2MLJ275
ORDER(1) This petition is filed by a Director of Amalgamated Commercial Traders (P) Ltd., for leant to inspect the documents relating to proceedings in T. C. No. 218 of 1959, and for grant of the copies of documents for the purpose of their defence in Company Petition No. 87 of 1964 and for prosecuting C. S. No. 65 of 1964.(2) The Company, Amalgamated Commercial Traders Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit C. S. No. 65 of 1964 against A.C.K. Krishnaswami, Hariprasad, Suit, Godavari Bhai and Factors (P) Ltd. In this suit the company, amongst other reliefs, prayed for a decree against defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit. The contention of the plaintiff Company is that the first defendant received a sum of Rs. 3,15,000 as and for the surrender value of a lease, and appropriated the proceeds which properly belonged to the Company. The suit is resisted by the defendants and is pending before the Original Side of this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!In Re : Raju thevan S/O Periakaruppu thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-01-1965
Reported in: 1966CriLJ1141
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. All these applications arise out of orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai in Cri. Nos. 10 and 11 of 1965 of the Gudalur police station. The petitioners in all these petitions were arrested, detained and confined in jail custody from 13.2.1965 till today on the ground that they were suspected to have abetted, participated and committed grave offences, such as, rioting armed with deadly weapons, attempt to murder, causing hurt to deter public servant from doing his duty and causing the murder of two policemen, in connection with the mass upsurge in Gudalur, a big village in the extreme southwest of Madurai Dt. in South India, on account of Hindi being imposed on the citizens of South India as official language.2. All the petitioners in the above applications were in a crowd of about 500 at the lime of the alleged incident that took place on 12.2.1965. The petitioners, along with other persons, on the date of the incident, proceeded towards the post of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›