Chennai Court April 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.
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Sri Dayanand Corporati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC346(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This revision case is filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 1004 of 1962. The facts, which have led to the filing of this revision case, are stated clearly in the order of the Appellate Tribunal and we will extract them briefly for the purpose of this revision case.2. The respondent is Dayanand Corporation and its proprietor is Vijaya-raghavalu Chetty doing the business of selling in public auction unredeemed articles pledged with pawnbrokers. The respondent claimed that the articles which were unredeemed pledges with pawnbrokers were sold by him during the year of assessment only as an auctioneer but not as a dealer within the scope of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and that therefore the sales should be exempt from assessment at his hands. The authorities of the Commercial Tax Department including the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, held that the responden...
The State of Madras Vs. M. Angappa Chettiar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC226(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this revision case is the State of Madras represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore Division, and the respondents are a firm of jewellers, Messrs Angappa Chettiar and Sons, Tiruppur. The short question raised for decision in this revision case is whether the Sales Tax Authorities were justified in awarding a penalty on the respondents for the alleged failure to disclose a turnover assessable under the Central Sales Tax Act during the year 1959-60 to which the assessment relates. The question about the existence of such omitted turnover arose because on the inspection of the premises of the dealer, a small note-book and certain slips were discovered which showed that the dealer had despatched goods by V.P.P. to addressees outside Madras State to the value of Rs. 27,840 in the year in question. The department therefore inferred that this represented omitted turnover of inter-State sales and this was added to the turnover r...
S.R. Chockalingam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Commissioner of Gift Tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad302
Ramakrishnan, J.1. This is a reference made to us for decision under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958, and it arises in the following circumstances.2. The assessee, S. R. Chockalingam Chettiar, is a shareholder in Sri Rama-lingam Choodambikai Mills Limited, Tirup' pur, wherein he held 450 Shares. The assessment year was 1958-59. In the previous year, that is the year ended 12-4-1958, the Company issued fresh capital. Acting under the provisions of Section 81 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the company issued a circular to the shareholders stating that they could renounce the shares offered to them in favour of any person or persons, that if they wished to exercise such a right, they must sign the form of renunciation and their nominees must also sign in the prescribed acceptance form. These forms were sent to the shareholders as enclosures to the said circular. The Assessee Chockalingam Chettiar received that circular, and the company had offered to allot to him from out of t...
Nagayasami Naidu and ors. Vs. Kochadai Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad329
1. Defendants 2 to 5 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Dindigul, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for partition of the properties described in the Schedules A to E, attached to the plaint and also the movables and into six shares and allotment of two shares to the plaintiffs 1 and 2, and one share to the first defendant. The second defendant has also been directed to render an account of the income from the properties of the family for a period of one year, September, 1957 to September, 1958, as claimed in the plaint. The following geneological tree, shows the relationship between the parties :--Nagayasami, the second defendant, and Ayyalu, the first defendant, are brothers. The first defendant's sons are the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The second defendant's son is the third defendant, fourth defendant, is the wife of defendant 3, and the fifth defendant, minor Renuka is their daughter. The plaintiffs case is that the second defendant and the members o...
M.V. Pavadai Chettiar Sons Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC67(Mad)
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This petition is filed by way of revision against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 242 of 1963. The prior circumstances which led to the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are briefly the following :The petitioner Pavadai Chettiar, who will be called as the assessee, is a dealer in cloth, bullion and jewellery. He had elected under Rule 18 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules to the submission of monthly returns and to his being assessed on the basis of such returns. The assessment order is for the period ending 31st March, 1961. His premises were inspected by the Sales Tax Authorities on 27th December, 1960. Two anamath account books were discovered and they were in the form of two small pocket note-books. One book contained entries for transactions from 16th September, 1960 to 29th November, 1960, and the other, entries for transactions from 29th November, 1960 to 27th December, 1960. During the period covered by the anamath accoun...
Eustace (H.D.V.) Vs. Southern Railway (by General Manager) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)IILLJ296Mad
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. The petitioner herein is the Chief Inspector, Communications, Southern Railway, Madras. He has filed the present petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents, the General Manager, Southern Railway, and the Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, from proceeding with the enquiry in pursuance of their Memorandum M/Con. 090/A, dated 19 September 1964.2. On 26 August 1963 at about 1 p.m., when, according to the affidavit, the petitioner entered the office-room of one Gupta, Divisional Engineer, Signal and Tele-communications, to ascertain the reasons for some directions given by the said Gupta to him, Gupta got excited and assaulted the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Divisional Superintendent of Railways, against and that he has obtained a medical certificate for the injuries sustained by him. 3. Equally Gupta gave a complaint, on the same day, that the petitioner came to his room and asked him wh...
H.D.V. Eustace Vs. the General Manager, Southern Railway and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ208
ORDERT. Venakatadri, J.1. The petitioner herein is the Chief Inspector, Communications, Southern Railway, Madras. He has filed the present petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents, The General Manager, Southern Railway, and the Divisional Superintendent, Southern Railway, from proceeding with the enquiry m pursuance of their Memorandum M/Con. 090/A, dated 19th September, 1964.2. On 26th August 1963 at about 1 P.M., when according to the affidavit, the petitioner entered the office-room of one Gupta, Divisional Engineer, Signal and Telecommunications, to ascertain the reasons for some directions given by the said Gupta to him, Gupta got excited and assaulted the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner gave a complaint to the Divisional Superintendent of Railways, against the unprovoked assault; by Gupta. It is stated that he was treated for the injuries and that he has obtained a medical certificate for the injuries sustained by him.3. Equally, Gupta g...
Nagayasami Naidu and ors. Vs. Kochadai Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1967
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ105
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Court, Dindigul, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for partition of the properties described in the Schedules A to E, attached to the plaint and also the movables and into six shares and allotment of two shares to the plaintiffs 1 and 2, and one share to the first defendant. The second defendant has also been directed to render an account of the income from the properties of the family for a period of one year, September, 1957 to September, 1958, as claimed in the plaint. The following geneological tree, shows the relationship between the parties :--Nagayasami, the second defendant, and Ayyalu, the first defendant, are brothers. The first defendant's sons are the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The second defendant's son is the third defendant, fourth defendant, is the wife of defendant 3, and the fifth defendant, minor Renuka is their daughter. The plaintiffs case is that the second defendant...
S. R. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR397(Mad)
RAMAKRISHNAN J. - This is a reference made to us for decision under section 26 (1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, and it arises in the following circumstances :The assessee S. R. Chockalingam Chettiar, is a shareholder in Sri Ramalingam Choodambikai Mills Limited, Tirupur, wherein the held 450 shares. The assessment year was 1958-59. In the previous year, that is, the year ended April, 12, 1958, the company issued fresh capital, acting under the provisions of section 81 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, the company issued a circular to the shareholders stating that they could renounce the shares offered to them in favour of any person or persons, that if they wished to exercise such a right, they must sign the from of renunciation and their nominees must also sign in the prescribed acceptance form. These forms were sent to the shareholders as enclosures to the said circular. The assessee, Chockalingam Chettiar, received that circular, and the company had offered to allot to him from out o...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras Vs. Pioneer Spinners P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad223
1. This is a reference under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act and the question for decision is, whether the instrument in the case falls under Art. 6 of the Stamp Act as an agreement relating to deposit of title deeds or is only an agreement falling under Art. 5. To get at the true character of the instrument in question, it is necessary to briefly refer to the circumstances in which it came to be executed and the material terms of this instrument. The executants, the respondents herein, on 13th February 1963 applied to the Canara Bank Ltd. Advance Dept. Bangalore, for a loan of Rs. 8,00,000, for business purposes at the Coimbatore office of the Bank, offering to secure the repayment of the loan, (1) by executing in favour of the Bank a document termed. "Articles of Agreement" for Rs. 8,00,000, with other relative papers and (2) by delivering and depositing with the Bank with intent to create security thereon title deeds of properties set out in the schedules to their proposal. The propos...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »