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 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras, Board of Revenue Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad1
1. These references under Section 57 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, are closely inter-related in the substantial question involved, namely,, what was precisely decided in Crompton Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras I.L.R. (1953) Mad. 566 (F.B.) (1953) 1 M.L.J. 620, and how far should the dicta in that judgment be pressed with. regard to an unregistered instrument, which, but for registration, is effective to transfer rights as a conveyance or a deed of mortgage? Of the three references, Referred Case No. 13 of 1965 is the most significant, on the facts, and the arguments were really elaborated in this case. Therefore, we consider it most appropriate to deal with this reference immediately, and in detail. The question for our decision is:Whether the instrument in question is not liable to be stamped under Article 23 of Schedule I of Stamp Act, even though it is not registered, and whether instruments in general are to be stamped on execution notwithsta...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Referring O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ1
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. These references under Section 57 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, are closely inter-related in the substantial question involved, namely,, what was precisely decided in Crompton Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Madras I.L.R. (1953) Mad. 566 (1953) 1 M.L.J. 620, and how far should the dicta in that judgment be pressed with. regard to an unregistered instrument, which, but for registration, is effective to transfer rights as a conveyance or a deed of mortgage? Of the three references, Referred Case No. 13 of 1965 is the most significant, on the facts, and the arguments were really elaborated in this case. Therefore, we consider it most appropriate to deal with this reference immediately, and in detail. The question for our decision is:Whether the instrument in question is not liable to be stamped under Article 23 of Schedule I of Stamp Act, even though it is not registered, and whether instruments in general are to be stamped o...
Mannammal Vs. Sesha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ94
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition raises an interesting question under the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. The petitioner's election was called into question, by an election petition filed by the respondents herein before the Election Tribunal constituted under the Act in the normal course. The petitioner before me raised the question whether such an election petition before the Election Tribunal constituted under the Act is maintainable, as she was a member who was co-opted under Section 15(4) of the Act and not elected by the citizens of the Panchayat. The Election Tribunal, while considering the question and agreeing with the definition of co-option in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, held that co-option mean election. It therefore held that it had the right to investigate into the merits of the so-called election petition filed before it under Notification No. 10 issued in exercise of the powers under Clause (2) of Sub-section (2) of Section 178 of the Ma...
In Re: Sudalaimuthu Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ132
ORDERR. Sadasivam, J.1. Petitioners Sudalaimuthu Nadar and Murugiah Nadar are the owners of a grocery shop in Dindigul Road, Madurai, and the salesman in the shop respectively, and they have been convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the Act) for having sold adulterated gingelly oil and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75 each. The conviction is based on the report Exhibit P-7 that the sample of the gingelly oil taken from the shop of the petitioners gave a reading of 62.5 when examined at 40C. with the help of Butyro-refractometer, whereas according to the standard fixed in Clause A. 17.11 in Appendix B to Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, it should only be between 58 and 61. C.W. 1 Narayanaswamy, Public Analyst, Madurai Municipality, was examined to speak to the report and gave expert opinion, though he did not actually do the test in this case. Both the Courts below found that gingelly oil sold by the peti...
Rajagopal Pillai and ors. Vs. Pakkiam Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ411
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit, Original Suit No. 152 of 1960 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein for partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share in the properties specified in Schedules A to C attached to the plaint. Annavi, is the fifth defendant in the suit and his sons who are now alive are defendants 1 to 4. Annavi had a son by name Arumugham who died in 1954. The first plaintiff, Pakkiam Ammal has filed the present suit for partition claiming to be the legally wedded wife of this Arumugham, her marriage having taken place in 1943. The second plaintiff is their daughter born in June, 1945. The case of the first plaintiff is that her husband Arumugham and the defendants, her father-in-law and brothers-in-law, constituted members of a joint Hindu undivided family, that all the properties involved in the suit are joint family properties, that her husband and the plaintiffs were living with the defendants in the family house at Manapparai and that eve...
T. M. S. Mohammed Abdul Kader Vs. Commissioner of Gift-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR237(Mad)
RAMAKRISHAN J. - This tax case petition was filed under section 26 (3) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958. The petitioner made a gift of a certain extent of land to his daughter and grandchildren. The question arose before the gift-tax authorities about estimating the value of the gift, and for that purpose, the assessee had estimated the value at Rs. 900 per acre. But the Gift-tax Officer, Nagapattinam, considered this valuation to be extremely law land on the basis of local enquiries adopted the value of Rs. 1,200 per acre. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the appellant authority accepted the assessees valuation of Rs. 900 per acre. Against this last-mentioned decision, the department took the matter on further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench. This Tribunal by an order which it described as a remand order, passed on 30th of October, 1964, referred to a contention put forward before it, that the sale deed on the basis of which the Ap...
Muthukumaran Vs. the Inspector of Panchayats and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ264
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is field by the President of the Manangorai Panchayat for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the resolution dated 14th June, 1966 of the Manangorai Panchayat and to quash the same.2. The members of the Panchayat gave notice of a motion of no-confidence against-the petitioner and the Tahsildar of Thanjavur issued notice to the petitioner of the meeting on 23rd May, 1966 for considering the motion of no-confidence. The meeting was subsequently adjourned to 31st May, 1966 as a woman member, who was co-opted to the Panchayat gave a memo. stating that she has filed an O.P, under Section 28 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, and that the meeting might be adjourned. The petitioner also intimated the Tahsildar that he and his followers would not participate in the meeting. The Tahsildar adjourned the meeting, and on 7th June, 1966 issued a fresh notice fixing the date of the meeting as 14th June, 1966. On 14th June, 1966 at the ...
N. Sathianathan, Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Salem an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad236; (1968)1MLJ31
1. The question in these petitions is whether the Regional Transport Authority's power to approve fares for passengers in their stage carriages proposed by a transport operator within the limits directed by the State Government under S. 43(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 includes authority to vary such fares and re-fix them as it thinks fit subject of course to the Government's directive as to the minimum and maximum fares to be charged. To decide the point, it is not necessary to narrate the facts in each of the petitions. But it will suffice to notice that in W. P. 539 of 1966 the petitioner is a transport operator who plies his stage carriages in Salem Dt. and other inter-district routes in Salem and Tiruchi Dts. and other inter-State routes. He had been charging since 1953 about half anna per mile per passenger though the Government had permitted then the maximum of 71/2 pies per mile.By a notification in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 25-3-1964, the State Government directed...
Larsen and Toubra Ltd., Madras and ors. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad407; [1967]20STC150(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. We have before us two batches of cases, the first raising the question whether Sections 8(2), 8(2-A), 5 and 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956 violates Articles 301 and 303(1) of the Constitution. In the other batch the scope and effect of Sections 3 to 6, 8, 9, 14 and 15 of the Act and their applicability to the facts fall to be considered. We shall first notice the facts in one of the petitions in the first batch which is more or less typical of the others in that batch which will suffice to show how the constitutional validity of the sections has been raised.(2) The petitioner in W. P. No 837 of 1966 is a registered dealer and describes himself as a manufacturer of matches at Sankarankoil with a sales depot at Ongole in Andhra Pradesh. The business is carried on under the name and style of Lakshmi Match Workers. For the accounting year 1963-64, the petitioner filed monthly returns in form I showing a total taxable turnover of Rupees 26300 under the Central Sale...
In Re: Rajendra Industries (Private) Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1967
Reported in: [1967]37CompCas563(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, Rajendra Industries (Private) Limited, is seeking for confirmation of the alteration of the memorandum of association as accepted by the company at its meeting held on the 24th of December, 1966.2. When the application came up before me, I casually perused the various objects which are sought to be introduced into the memorandum of association by reason of a resolution of the company and confirmation of which is now sought for. I directed notice to the Registrar of Companies and wanted a report to be submitted by him whether the objects now sought to be introduced into the memorandum are substantially and totally different from the original objects of the company and whether they are in any way ancillary or incidental to them. The Registrar in his report dated 20th of March, 1967, states that in his opinion there appears to be substantial changes in the main clauses of the company and that the company is to diversify its activities and which, accor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »