Chennai Court October 1967 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.
State of Madras Vs. Indian Oxygen Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC476(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The only point in this case is whether arc welding rods are electrical goods within the meaning of entry 41 of the First Schedule of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This point was elaborately considered by us in Tax Case No. 140 of 19641 in which we were of the view that welding rods were not within the ambit of the entry. Learned Special Government Pleader tried to distinguish Tax Case No. 140 of 19641, but he has not succeeded in pointing out any difference. The Tribunal had a demonstration before it, and on that basis it has stated that the rods by user of oxygen gas melted and became non-existent in the process of welding. That means the welding rods were capable of user ' without electrical energy. Even otherwise, the Tribunal was correct in its view that the rods did not fall within the ambit of 'electrical goods' as defined in entry 41, because the rods themselves neither generate nor transmit electricity. But in the process of welding, the rods, due to ...
The Trustees of the Port of Madras Vs. the Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ179
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The only point involved in this civil revision proceeding is the interpretation of Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act, 1905, in the context of the admitted facts of the case. Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act is in the following terms:No suit or other proceeding shall be commenced against any person for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act without giving to such person one month's previous notice in writing of the intended suit or other proceeding, and of the cause thereof nor after six months from the accrual of the cause of such suit or other proceedings.2. The question of interpretation that arises is whether the two limbs or clauses of the section should be interpreted cumulatively or disjunctively. In other words, if any suit filed after six months from the accrual of the cause of such suit is explicitly barred under the second limb of the above section, would a plaintiff be barred who gave notice of his s...
M.O. Muthukrishnan, Managing Trustee of Sri Pachiamman Temple Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ376
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner is the Managing Trustee of Sri Pachaiamman Temple, Mount Road, Madras. He had applied and obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, a certificate under Section 101 of Madras Act XXII of 1959, that a certain property belongs to Sri Pachaiamman Temple. Such certificate would thereafter enable the petitioner to Obtain delivery: of possession of the property by application to the Magistrate. At that stage, on the initiative of the 2nd respondent a lessee of the property, the first respondent, Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, purporting to exercise powers of revision conferred on him under Section 21 of Madras Act (XXII of 1959), cancelled the certificate. It is alleged that the main reason which led the Commissioner to interfere with the grant of the certificate was that the 2nd respondent was in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant and it would not be proper for the trus...
K. Gopalakrishnan Minor Vs. Sankara Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad436
Sadasivam, J. 1. On the morning of 16-12-1963 at about 9-15 A. M. there was an accident at the junction of St. Mary's Road and C. P. Ramaswami Iyer Road, Madras, in which the lorry MSY 3463 owned by M/s. T. U. C. S. Ltd., and driven by one Sankaranarayanan (R. W. 1) and the Scooter MSY 4456 owned and driven by M.K. Subramanian (R. W. 2) were involved. One K. Gopalakrishnan (P.W. 10) son of Krishnan (P.W. 11) who was travelling on the pillion of the scooter at the time of the accident sustained a lacerated injury on his left leg 10' x 51/2' with fracture of both bones as the right rear wheel of the lorry ran over his left led, after he fell down as a result of both the vehicles colliding on their sides, and this finally resulted in the amputation of his left leg above the knee. The pillion rider Gopalakrishnan claimed Rs. 3,60,210 as compensation in O. P. No. 60 of 1964 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Madras (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) impleading R. W. 1...
Textool Company Limited Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC232(Mad)
ORDERRamakrishnan, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners are Messrs Textool Company Ltd., Coimbatore. They carry on business in the manufacture of textile machinery along with other items. They filed A.2 returns under the Madras General Sales Tax Act furnishing a turnover of rupees eleven lakhs and odd for September, 1964, and nearly rupees seven lakhs for October, 1964, and claimed that the sales should be assessed at the ordinary rate of 2 per cent. The second respondent, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore, was of the opinion that the textile machinery fell under entry 41 of the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as amended by Madras Act XV of 1964 and that the concerned turnover should be assessed at the single point rate of 6 per cent. The petitioners' contention in both these writ petitions is that entry 41 refers only to electrical machinery, but the textile machinery which the petitioners sold is not electrical machinery and therefor...
Standard Motor Products of India Ltd. Vs. the President, Panchayat and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ221
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These writ petitions are dealt with together as certain common questions arise for decision. I will take up first the three writ petitions of the year 1965. They relate to the demand of property tax by the respondent, President, Panchayat, Perungalathur, Chingleput District, against the petitioner, Standard Motor Products of India Limited, for the half years ending 31st March, 1964, 30th September, 1964 and 31st March, 1965. The petitioner, according to its affidavit, is a manufacturer of motor cars and their parts, and it has got its factory at Perungalathur, within the limits of the respondent panchayat. The levy of property tax on factory buildings is governed by the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958 (XXXV of 1958) (hereinafter called the Act). The factory building is a house as defined in Section 2(13) of the Act. That definition reads:'house' means a building fit for human occupation, whether as a residence or otherwise...and includes any shop, workshop or war...
K. Gopalakrishnan, Minor by Next Friend Guardian Father B.R. Krishnan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ49
R. Sadasivam, J.1. On the morning of 16th December, 1963 at about 9-15 a.m. there was an accident at the Junction of St. Mary's Road and C. P. Ramaswami Iyer Road, Madras in which the lorry MSY 3463 owned by T.U.C.S. Ltd. and driven by one Sankaranarayanan (R.W. 1) and the scooter, MSY 4456 owned and driven by M. K. Subramanian (R.W. 2) were involved. One K. Gopalakrishnan (P.W. 10) son of Krishnan (P.W. 11) who was travelling on the pillion of the scooter at the time of the accident, sustained a lacerated injury on his left leg 10' x 51/2' with fracture of both bones as the right rear wheel of the lorry ran over his left leg, after he fell down as a result of both the vehicles colliding on their sides and this finally resulted in the amputation of his left leg above the knee. The pillion-rider Gopalakrishnan claimed Rs. 3,60,210 as compensation in O.P. No. 60 of 1964 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) impleading R.W. 1...
Engineering Construction Corporation, Ltd. Vs. Madras Port Trust, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad335
ORDER(1) This petition O. P. No. 213 of 1966 has been filed by the Engineering Construction Corporation, Limited, Bombay (hereinafter referred as 'the Company') under Sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, Act 10 of 1940, for setting aside a award dated 30th October 1965, delivered by the umpire Dr. P.V. Rajamannar, retired Chief Justice, the second respondent herein. The first respondent is the Madras Port Trust. The award in question is filed by in the proceedings in O. P. No. 276 of 1965 and O. P. No. 280 of 1965 initiated by the Port Trust and the Company respectively. This petition to set aside the award which was filed on 11th October 1966, is resisted by the Port Trust on the ground (amongst others) that it is barred by the limitation under Art. 119(b) of the Limitation act, Act 36 of 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As this objection went to the root of the matter, I decided to here same as a preliminary point, and I heard arguments by the counsel on both si...
The Government of Madras, Represented by the Superintending Engineer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ13
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. With reference to a contract between Messrs. Indians Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. and the Government of Madras, represented by the Superintending Engineer (Public Health), Madras, there was an arbitration upon certain matters as provided for in the contract itself. The arbitrator was the Superintending Engineer (Special Buildings Circle), P.W.D. and the relevant findings in the award are (1) that the extra amount claimed by the company to the tune of Rs. 57,637-16 due to price variations, should be negatived and (2) that no interest can be claimed by the company after 26th December, 1963. With regard to these findings of the award there were two petitions before Sadasivam, J., O.P. No. 182 of 1965, a petition by the Superintending Engineer for recording the award by its reception into Court O.P. No. 241 of 1965 by Messrs. Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd., under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, to set aside the award. The learned Judge allowed the application by the compan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›