Chennai Court July 1967 Judgments
ScIndia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad289
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. (1) The Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., is the appellants in these related writ appeals. They arise from proceedings respectively for the issue of a writ of certiorari and a consequential writ of mandamus, seeking of quash the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, enforcing a particular levy, and to restrain the authorities to forbear from collection. The proceedings were dismissed by Srinivasan, J. The facts are fully set forth in the affidavit of the Assistant Manager of the appellant fir, and the judgment of the learned Judge. The essential facts are as follows:--(2) It appears, that certain coastal vessels of the appellant firm, called from a port or ports in India, touching the port of Colombo (Ceylon) en route and finally entered Tuticorin harbour. It is not in dispute that, in addition to the oil which these vessels held, in their containers when they set sail, which would of course, be oil taken from an Indian port or ports on which duty had...
Tag this Judgment!Uthandarama Pillai Vs. M. Arumugham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1967
Reported in: AIR1971Mad215
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. This civil revision petition comes before us on a reference by one of us, on the ground that there was conflict of opinion on the question whether court-fee would be payable on the value of improvements effected by consent, which is claimed by the mortgagee in a suit for redemption and possession.2. Alamelu Ammal v. Thayarammal. : AIR1961Mad355 held that such a claim for improvements was a counterclaim and would attract court-fee under Section 8 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. Apparswami Chettiar v. Parvathavardhani Sametha Ramanatheeswara Choudambigai Amman Temple, Cuddalore, : AIR1961Mad527 differed from that view and though that such a claim would not be a counter-claim and no court-fee would be payable, Subramanian Chettiar v. Shanmugham. : AIR1967Mad300 shared the view of : AIR1961Mad527 . A counter-claim is one based on an independent cause of action which distinguishes it from a set off, which will generally arise as a part of the transac...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Chetty and anr. Vs. Sakku Bai Alias Lakshmi Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ543
T. Venkatadri, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. The suit is for redemption of the properties belonging to one Santhanaramaswami Raja. He had othied the properties to the first defendant on 25th April, 1927. The first defendant is thus the mortgagee represented by his mother, the second defendant, since the first defendant was minor at the time of the mortgage. The sum secured was about Rs. 1,500 and the period fixed for redemption was seven years. The mortgagee was directed to pay from and out of the sum of Rs. 1,500 Rs. 800 to one Pakirisami Naidu, who was the prior othidar in respect of one item and Rs. 700 borrowed in cash for litigation expenses of the mortgagor. The defendants did not pay the prior mortgagee i.e., Pakirisami Naidu, and they did not get possession of that item of the properties which Was in his possession. Therefore, the mortgagors redeemed the property in O.S. No. 171 of 1956 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tanjore, from Pa`kkiriswami Naidu and took...
Tag this Judgment!V. Selvaraj Vs. Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad378
ORDER(1) The above two applications were taken up together for hearing, as common questions are involved. Company Applications No. 124 of 1967 is by a shareholder of the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund Limited, which is governed by the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, for a direction restraining respondents 2 to 5 from exercising the functions of directors of the above fund which is a public limited company, and for certain incidental orders. The 1st respondent in the said application, is the Fund itself. The applicant alleges that respondents 2 to 5 have to retire on the holding of the 94th annual general body meeting of the Fund, their term of office having expired by efflux of time and they being obliged to retire by rotation. The 94th annual general body meeting was called by the Board of Directors who were in charge of the affairs of the Fund and who were statutorily obliged to call for such a meeting. Such annual general body meeting was proposed to be convened at 2 p....
Tag this Judgment!S. Kannappa Mudaliar Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad329; (1968)1MLJ6; [1968]21STC41(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.(1) The only question involved in this tax revision case is whether cocoanuts are classifiable under oil-seeds within the meaning of Item 6(a) of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The petitioner who was a dealer in dehisced cocoanuts is disputing the eligibility to tax on a turnover of Rs. 1,74,013.90. The assessee was unsuccessful before the Revenue. The Tribunal, however, considered his contention that cocoanuts are not oil-seeds, but came to the conclusion that they are and incidentally also held that cocoanuts are not vegetables and therefore not exempt from tax. What was pressed before us is whether the finding of the Tribunal that cocoanuts are oil-seeds is correct and justified. No other point was seriously pressed or argued.(2) The ordinary meaning of the word 'seed' is 'that which is sown'. Its botanical expansion, according to the Chambers' 20th Century Dictionary is, a multi-cellular structure by which flowering plants reproduc...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Ltd., Ennore, Madras Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad348; [1967]20STC450(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal in the form of a tax case is directed against an order of the Board of Revenue dated 20th October 1964, passed in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision. The appeal is confined only to a turnover of Rs. 21,02,712.34, which consists of admittedly inter-State sales of chassis. These sales were not originally brought to tax on the view that they took place prior to 1st July 1957, on which date S. 6, by notification in that regard, was brought into force. The Board of Revenue disagreed with that view and was of opinion that the inter-State sales, though invoiced or billed prior to 1st July 1957, were actually completed only thereafter by delivery to the out-of-the-State dealers.(2) The Board's order shows that it laid great emphasis on the fact that it was the assessee's drivers that drove out the vehicles outside the borders of the State, that the vehicles were also insured in the name of the assessee and thus the right of disposal of the vehicles vested ...
Tag this Judgment!The Ben Gorm Nilgiri Plantations Company Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC480(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The question in this case is whether the assessee as a registered dealer made false representation in the declarations in Form C issued by him. Both the revenue as well as the Tribunal have concurred and held against the assessee on the point, the only difference being that the Tribunal reduced the fine to Rs. 100. The application for registration mentioned the goods as 'for use in the manufacture, tea-chests for packing purposes, machinery, drugs etc., for running the estate and manufacturing tea'. In the certificate of registration issued on this application against the column 'for use in manufacture', 'tea-chests, machinery, drugs etc.' were mentioned. The C Form issued by the assessee included blankets, paints, tiles, clocks and brushes. His stand was that he was under a bona fide belief that the registration certificate included these items also and he formed that belief because of the description of the goods mentioned in his application and the word 'etc.' foun...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Leyland Limited Vs. the State of Madras (Represented by the Comm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ436
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This appeal in the form of a Tax Case is directed against an order of the Board of Revenue dated 20th October, 1964, passed in exercise of its suo motu powers of a revision. The appeal is confined only to a turnover of Rs. 21,02,712-34 which consists of admittedly inter-State sales of chassis. These sales were not originally brought to tax on the view that they took place prior to 1st July, 1957, on which date Section 6, by a notification in that regard, was brought into force. The Board of Revenue disagreed with that view and was of opinion that the inter-State sales, though invoiced or billed prior to 1st July, 1957, were actually completed only thereafter by delivery to the out of State dealers.2. The Board's order shows that it laid great emphasis on the fact that it was the assessee's drivers that drove out the vehicles outside the borders of the State, that the vehicles were also insured in the name of the assessee and thus the right of disposal of the vehicle...
Tag this Judgment!Kanthammal Vs. D. Venkatakrishna Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad362; (1968)1MLJ1
(1) This appeal is filed by the 8th defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction regarding the suit properties or in the alternative for possession of the same.(2) The suit properties originally belonged to defendants 1 and 2. The 2nd defendant is the son of the first defendant. Defendants 3 to 7 are the children of the 2nd defendants. The 8th defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant. The 8th defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant, and she is the appellant in the second appeal. Defendants 1 and 2 i.e., father and son, mortgaged the suit properties to the plaintiff in the year 1945 for Rs. 2220. To discharge the mortgage, they sold the suit properties to the plaintiff under two sale deeds, Exs. A-2 and A-3 both dated 7-2-1949. One creditor of the 2nd defendant filed a suit O. S. 31 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vellore against the 2nd defendant and obtained a decree against him. In pursuance of the decree obtained in that suit, the creditor attached the s...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamed Ebrahim and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Sridhar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ406
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This petition is to revise an order of the Third Judge in the Court of Small Causes, by which he allowed the appeal by the tenant and dismissed the petition filed by the landlord for eviction. The landlord, who is the petitioner in this Court, purchased on 22nd November, 1961 the premises bearing Nos. 11-A-1 and 11-A-2 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000. (three lakhs). The petitioner is a private limited company carrying on its business at Nos. 7 and 8, Mount Road, Madras, in electrical goods, radios, tape recorders and other goods. It has a branch in upstairs of Nos. 26 and 27 Rattan Bazaar, Madras, besides a godown behind the Life Insurance Corporation building in Mount Road. All these buildings have been taken on lease on heavy rents by the petitioner for the purpose of its business. It appears the rent for the premises Nos. 7 and 8, Mount Road known as Victory House, was Rs. 2,600 per mensem and since 1964, it has been increased to Rs. 2,500 per mensem. At the time of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »