Chennai Court December 1966 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.
Union of India (Uoi) by the General Manager, Southern Railway Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1966
Reported in: [1967]20STC107(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. These two petitions are filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway. The prayer in these writ petitions arises out of the demand by the State Government of sales tax from the Southern Railway, on its turnover of sales of foodstuffs and refreshments in the several refreshment rooms which the Railway is maintaining. The period covers three years, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit to the petition that the maintenance of refreshment rooms, though it forms part of the organisation of the Government, in running the railways, does not involve the carrying on of any business of buying or selling food-stuffs or refreshments, strictly so-called, but it is merely an activity undertaken by way of providing amenities to the passengers who use the railways for travelling. It is also alleged that these refreshment rooms are run on a non-profit basis, and the prices charged are equivalent to the cost of p...
S.K.M. Muhammed Mustafa Marakayar Vs. Udayanachiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1966
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ58
K. Veeraswami, J.1. The third defendant, who is one of the legal representatives of the original mortgagor is the appellant. The first respondent as assignee of the suit mortgage, dated 9th September, 1937, sued on it and asked for sale of a part of the hypotheca in default of payment. Most of the allenees of parts of the hypotheca have been impleaded as defendants in addition to the legal representatives of the original mortgagor who died in about 1942. Various defences were raised of which the substantial one was whether the properties mentioned in the plaint B schedule were liable for the mortgage amount and whether the suit was not barred under the provisions of the Madras. Act XXVI of 1948. Among the other minor questions were whether the plaint B schedule properties formed part of the mortgage and whether the debtors were not entitled to the benefits of the Madras Act IV of 1938. On all these questions the 1st respondent succeeded.2. The mortgage was by one S- K. Muhammed Aliar M...
Seth Tulsidoss Lalchand Vs. G. Rajagopal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ66
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is a petition to revise the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in A.S. No. 577 of 1963 by a plaintiff whose suit was dismissed and whose appeal thereon was also dismissed. The suit was on the basis of a promissory note. The promissory note was on a printed form. The defendants' contention in the suit was a plea of discharge, which was found against by the trial Court but both the appellant and the trial Court accepted the contention put forward on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff had filled up the blank in the promissory note with regard to the interest showing that it was one per cent. per month. They, therefore, held that this amounted to a material alteration and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The question therefore before this Court is of a very limited scope, and that is whether the fact that the promisee had filled up the blank with regard to the rate of interest makes the document one which has been materia...
Union of India (Uoi) by the General Manager, Southern Railway Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1966
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ248
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These two petitions are filed by the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway. The prayer in these Writ Petitions arises out of the demand by the State Government of sales tax from the Southern Railway on its turnover of sales of foodstuffs and refreshments in the several refreshment rooms which the Railway is maintaining. The period covers three years, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. The petitioner alleges in the affidavit to the petition that the maintenance of refreshment rooms, though it forms part of the organisation of the Government, in running the railways, does not involve the carrying on of any business of buying or selling foodstuffs or refreshments, strictly so called, but it is merely on activity undertaken by way of providing amenities to the passengers who use the railways for travelling. It is also alleged that these refreshment rooms are run on a non-profit basis, and the prices charged are equivalent to the cost of ...
E.R. Sitarama Reddiar Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1966
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ615
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council, Rishivandyam, against whom a motion of no-confidence had been passed for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Rishivandyam Panchayat Union Council relating to the proceedings of the Council at the meeting convened by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam, on 5th May, 1966, and for quashing the same as illegal.2. The petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the Rishivandyam Panchayat Union Council in 1961. On 30th April, 1965, he was re-elected as Chairman. On 24th March, 1966, 29 members of the Rishivandyam Panchayat Union Council gave notice to the first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam, expressing their intention to make a motion of no-confidence in the Chairman of the Council, the present petitioner. A copy of the statement of charges along with the motion was sent to the Chairman by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vridhachalam, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›