Chennai Court August 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.
V.G. Row Vs. A. Alagiriswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad347
ORDER(1) Sri Alagiriswami, the first respondent, to this petition, was appointed an Additional Judge of this High Court on 8th August 1966, On the 11th August 1966, this petition seeking the issue of a quo warranto calling upon the first respondent to show under what authority he holds the office in question was filed. The petitioner is a member of the High Court Bar and has been a practitioner before this Court for the last 34 years. He claims that as a member of the Bar, he is vitally interested in the purity of the administration of justice and for reasons that would be apparent from what follows, he finds it to be his duty to move this Court in this matter.(2) According to the petitioner, Sri Alagiriswami does not possess the qualification prescribed by Article 217(2)(b) of the Constitutions. Secondly, it is contended that the appointment has been made virtually in the teeth of a Bench decision of this Court in which on an earlier occasion the property of the appointment of Sri Ala...
Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Ramachandra Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1115
Ramakrishnan, J.1. These two appeals are filed by the State of Madras against the acquittal of the same accused person in C. T. Nos. 128 and 129 of 1963 on the file of the Fifth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. On 1.6.1963 the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, (Detection) South Madras on inspection of the place of business of the accused recovered certain rough account slips and bills. From a perusal of these documents, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer came to the conclusion that for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 respectively the dealer had made suppressions of turnover to the extent of Rs. 1,30,857 and Rs. 1,81,018 respectively. It was alleged that in the returns of turnover prescribed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the above amounts were not included, that the omission was wilful and that as a result the dealer is liable to prosecution under Section 45 (2) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Two charge sheets were filed for the failure...
In Re: Chinnappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1966
Reported in: 1967CriLJ1341
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. In Crime No. 101 of 1966 of Tiruttani police station three persons, Chinnappa, Aruldoss and Krishnan, were charged for the murder of one Gopal. The confessional statement of Krishnan was recorded by the Sub-Magistrate, Kancheepurarn, on 9-3-1966. Subsequently, on 17-6-1966, when the matter was still under investigation, pardon was tendered to Krishnan by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Trivellore, acting under the proviso to Section 337 (1) of the Crl. P. C. Krishnan was sought to be examined as P. W. 1 in the preliminary enquiry conducted under Chapter XVIII. Crl P. C. by the judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruttani. Objection was taken to this by the other two accused, Chinnappa and Arul-doss, on the ground that the tender of pardon was invalid, because the Executive First Class Magistrate, Trivellore, who tendered the pardon had himself not examined Krishnan and recorded his statement but had merely relied on his prior confessional statement made on ...
Jayaraj Antony Vs. Mary Seeniammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad242
M. Anantanrayan, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the learned District Judge of Triunveli under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869) in a petition by the husband (Jayaraj Anthony) for a declaration of nullity in respect of the marriage between him and his wife (mary Seeniammal) on the substantive ground that the wire(respondent) declined all access to the husband subsequent to the marriage, refused to consummate the marriage, and hence must be regarded as 'important' both at the time of the marriage and at the time of the proceeding. The learned District Judge accepted the evidence for the plaintiff and granted a decree in the usual form, subject to our confirmation.(2) Under Section 19(1) of Act 4 of 1869, one of the grounds on which the petition for a decree of nullity, in respect of a marriage, could be successfully maintained is that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage, and at the time of the institution of the suit. This is what the husband allege...
Collector of North Arcot, Vellore Vs. V.K. Kannan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad249; [1967]65ITR301(Mad)
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.(1) In Santosh Nadar v First Addl Income-tax Officer, Tuticorin, : [1961]42ITR715(Mad) the Bench of Rajagopalan, Officiating Chief Justice and Srinivasan J. laid down that where a certificate is issued under Section 46(2) for a sum which is substantially in excess of the sum that was actually due, that error would go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Collector to recover the arrears, under Section 27 and 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The learned Judges of the Bench have given their reasons for this view in the following language:'It should be needless to point out that under the Revenue Recovery Act, the Collector had no jurisdiction either to attach or to bring to sale properties to recover a sum higher than what was legally due on the date of the notice of attachment............ That vitiated the subsequent sale'.The facts here are in pari materia with that case, and here also there has been a sale, following action by the Collector in respect of a cert...
E. A. Venkataramier and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1966
Reported in: [1967]65ITR316(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - We are in this reference concerned with the assessment year 1955-56 for which the previous year ended on April 30, 1955. The assessee was a registered firm having eight partners of whom four were the relative husbands of other partners. For the year in question, the assessee returned a total income of Rs. 1,21,058 which was accepted by an order of the Income-tax Officer dated October 11, 1956. The assessment was however reopened under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and a sum of Rs. 10,000 was added to the chargeable income on the view that it represented undisclosed income of the assessee. The propriety of this order was the subject-matter of an appeal a further appeal, both of which failed. The Tribunal has, under section 66(1) of the Act, refereed to this court the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reassessment on the assessee firm for 1955-56 assessment under section 34 is valid in la ?'There is some controv...
In Re: R. Kothandapani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1966
Reported in: 1968CriLJ182
ORDERVenkataraman, J.1. In this case the charge was filed by the Police against three accused. One of them pleaded guilty even at the outset as soon as the charge was framed. He was duly convicted. Another S.R. Subramaniam initially pleaded not guilty. But after some of the prosecution witnesses were examined he filed a written Memorandum admitting the offence and pleading guilty. He was convicted on his plea on 25th June 1966 and was released under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Probation of Offenders Act Thereafter he was cited as a prosecution witness against the remaining accused Kothandapani. Kothandapani filed an application before the Additional First Class Magistrate to set aside the conviction of S.R. Subramaniam on 25th June 1966 and objecting to his examination as a witness.It would appear that it was brought to the notice of the Magistrate that according to the judgment of this Court in C.A. 231 and 383 of 1966 (Mad), it was not open to the Magistrate to have accepted the p...
V.G. Row Vs. N. Krishnaswami Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1966
Reported in: AIR1967Mad345
ORDER(1) This petition is filed for the issue of a writ in the nature of quo warrant against the first respondent, calling upon him to furnish information under what authority he holds the Public office of a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, after calling for the records from the second and third respondents.(2) The first respondent was appointed as a permanent Judge of this High Court on 8th July 1966 and he assumed office on the same date. He was enrolled as an advocate of this Court on 11-12-1939. It is stated that he elected to practise in the subordinate courts at Chingleput till December 1960, when he was appointed as Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. He was appointed Advocate General in 1964, which office he held till his appointment as a High Court Judge. According to the petitioner on the date of his appointment as High Court Judge, the first respondent had only five years and 7 months practiced in the High Court. The facts stated may be taken as correct, fo...
K.S. Varadaraja Iyengar Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1966
Reported in: [1967]19STC41(Mad)
ORDERVenkatadri, J.1. The petitioner, who is an agriculturist owning three acres of arecanut plantation in Mettupalayam, has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 31st March, 1963, of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mettupalayam, in proceedings 9920/59-60 on his file. By that order, the respondent-officer determined the turnover of the petitioner at Rs. 16,871.55 and levied tax on that. The contention for the petitioner is that he is exempted from paying that tax under the proviso to Section 2(r) read with explanation (1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. Section 2(r) of the Act defines 'turnover', and the proviso says that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce, other than tea, grown within the State by himself or on any land in which he has an interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, shall be excluded from his turnover. Explanation (1) runs thus :'Agricultural or horticultural produce' sha...
K. Simrathmull (No. 2) Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1966
Reported in: [1967]64ITR262(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This reference relates to the assessment year 1952-53 and the questions we are called upon to answer section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act of 1922 are the following :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the income of the applicants wife from her money-lending business is properly includible in the applicants assessments ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the income from agricultural lands is only business income is correct ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had material to hold that the profit on sale of Kandal and Bishopdown properties were liable to tax both as a dealer and as an adventurer ?'The assessee is the same as in Tax Case No. 61 of 1962. The first two questions in this reference are covered by our answers in the other tax case. Following our judgment in that case, we answer the first question ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »