Chennai Court July 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.
Mahomed Ebrahim and Co. (Private) Ltd. Vs. Sridhar and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ117
K. Veeraswami, J.1. This Petition is to reivse the order of the Third Judge of 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. II/A-1 and II/A-2 for a sum of Rs. 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. In has a branch at 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. 2,000 per mensem and since 1964 it has been increased to Rs. 2,500 per mensem. At the time of the purchase ...
J.M. Bhansali and ors. Vs. the State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1968Mad373; (1968)1MLJ442; [1968]21STC411(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.(1) Different assessees filed these petitions from a common order of the Tribunal, which, agreeing with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, held that no sufficient cause was shown to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. The assessment orders were received by the assessees on different dates, in April 1959, and in one case in May 1959. They filed writ petitions on April 25, directed against these orders except in the case in which the date of filing was May 26, 1959. This Court disposed of the writ petitions on 26-4-1962, except one of them which was disposed of on 9-11-1961. Appeals were filed on 26-5-1962 but one of them on 5th June 1962. It appears as the Department would have it, the appeal petitions were returned for compliance but they were represented only at the end of January 1963. Thus there has been a delay in each case of about three years.(2) We are unable to share the view of the Tribunal or the Appellate Asst. Commissioner that in the circumstances of th...
Paramasami Pillai Vs. Sornathammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad124
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant claiming to be the reversioner to the estate of one Deiva Pandian who died issueless on 6-7-1957 for setting aside a sale deed executed by Deiva Pandian in favour of the first defendant in the suit and for recovery of the suit properties. On an objection taken by the first defendant, the third defendant was added as a party to the suit on the ground that she was widow of Deiva Pandians' father and as such entitled to his estate. The plaintiff contended that the third defendant was not a woman at all, that therefore there could be no valid marriage between her and Deiva Pandian's father and that consequently she was not Deiva Pandian's father's widow. The trial Court held that the marriage between the third defendant and Deiva Pandian's father was valid. it also held that the plaintiff was not the reversioner to Deiva Pandian's estate, that the sale deed executed by Deiva Pandian in favour of the first defendant was execu...
A. Ponnuswamy Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC71(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The petitions are concerned with three different years and the short question is whether the . Tribunal's view that the estimate of turnover of sales can be based both on the estimated suppressed purchases and estimated suppressed sales is correct. As a result of discovery of certain books from a sugar broker, the department discovered suppression of purchases and sales of sugar. Some of these transactions were found to have been entered into with out-of-State dealers. In applying best judgment the revenue added to the turnover on the basis of suppressed purchases and also on the basis independently of suppressed sales. The Tribunal found nothing wrong in that.2. In our opinion, the Tribunal's view cannot be supported. It says this:It cannot be asserted with certainty that the stocks involved in the suppressed sales came out of those involved in the suppressed purchases especially when the appellant has done a large volume of business both purchases and sales.3. We sh...
The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. A.R.S. Thirumeninatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC184(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This case relates to the assessment year 1956-57. Two items of turnover, a total of Rs. 41,761-3-3, were included in the chargeable turnover by the departmental authorities, but the Tribunal, on the assessee's appeal, took a different view and deleted both of them. The first item is Rs. 18,301-3-3. That represents the proceeds of sales effected by two banks with whom the assessee had pledged the goods. After crediting the proceeds towards the debts, the banks paid over to the assessee the balance. The Tribunal, disagreeing with the departmental authorities, was of opinion that in selling the goods the banks did not act as the agents of the assessee, but exercised the pawnee's right under Section 176 of the Contract Act, and that even assuming the banks were agents, they should be regarded as dealers liable to pay the tax on the turnover. The second item of Rs. 23,460 related to what the assessee claimed to be sales of unread newspapers in the course of import. The Tri...
The State of Madras Vs. S.P. Vadivel Nadar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC448(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The assessee is a dealer selling what is called 'Sarvaroga Sanjeevi Thailam'. For the two years preceding the assessment year 1961-62, the revenue was of the view that this was a drug subject to multi-point tax. But in 1961-62 it changed its view and considered that the commodity falls within the scope of item 51 of the First Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Tribunal did not agree with that view with the result the revenue is before us in revision. Two writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 1826 and 1827 of 1964) are filed by the assessee to forbid the assessing authority from reopening the assessments for the earlier years on the changed view of the revenue as to the character of the commodity.2. The question has been decided with reference to a pamphlet in the nature of an advertisement relating to the commodity. As stated, it is described as 'Sarvaroga Sanjeevi Thailam'. The article does appear to have perfume and gives out an agreeable odour. Apart from ...
Ramalakshmana and Company and anr. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC35(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J. 1. Though the petitioners are different, as a common point arose their appeals were heard together by the Tribunal and the petitions directed against the appellate orders are also posted together. The common point is whether the assessee, who is a commission agent, and therefore, a dealer as defined in the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is entitled to deduction from the turnover of excise duty paid on the goods by the common principal. That excise duty is deductible from the turnover is not in dispute but the Tribunal took the view that inasmuch as the commission agent was not the person who paid the excise duty, he would not be entitled to ask for deduction under Rule 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.2. We are unable to accept that view. The transactions which were put through by the commission agent were really those of the principal and on his behalf. The commission agent will not normally be a dealer, but for the purpose of assessment, the expr...
P.S. Surulichamy Vs. S. Hari Jeggiappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ258
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. Writ Petition No. 2732 of 1966 is filed for the issue of a writ of quo warranto to respondents 1 to 7 calling upon them to show cause on what authority they hold office as members of the committee in the Sillamarathupatti Co-operative Agricultural Bank, Ltd., Sillamarathupatti, Writ Petition No. 2908 of 1966 is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the Sillamarathupatti Co-operative Agricultural Bank Ltd., directing the bank to admit the committee as on 2nd October, 1966, with the petitioner as the President and six others mentioned in the petition as members of the committee of the Bank. As the two writ petitions arise out of the same matter, they can be dealt with together.2. The petitioner in the two writ petitions, and six others were elected to the committee of the Sillamarathupatti Co-operative Agricultural Bank, Ltd., in 1965 for a term of three years. As one-thord of the members of the committee had to retire on the 1st of July, 1966, lots w...
S. Vellaya Gounder Vs. R. Venkatesa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ101
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The first defendant in the suit and the third defendant were partner in a venture, and they had dealings with the plaintiff. The accounts were periodically settled, and signed by the third defendant alone. The suit was filed within three years of the last of such settlements signed by the third defendant, but beyond a period of three years in respect of anything which could show that the first defendant had acknowledged liability. The trial Court held that in the circumstances the acknowledgment by the third defendant could not save limitation as against the first defendant. But the appellate Court took a different view, allowed the appeal in part and decreed the suit as against the first defendant also. The first defendant is the appellant before this Court.2. The lower appellate Court took into consideration the wording of the acknowledgment signed by the third defendant in Exhibit A-4 and thought he purported to sign the acknowledgment on behalf of both himself...
T.V. Sivaraj Alias T.V. Sivaraj Rahiman Bakish Pakkiri Sahib and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ195
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the contesting defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 15 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, against the order of the learned Judge appointing a Receiver of the properties of which the defendants claim to be in possession.2. The dispute between the parties is over the right of succession to the office of Makkandhar or the Manager of the Thaikkal concerned in the suit. The Thaikkal was founded over a century back by a Hindu who came under the benign influence of a Muslim saint. He endowed, some properties for the Thaikkal. The Makkandhar, by birth a Hindu had to embrace Islam before becoming Makkandhar. The last Makkandhar was one such person named Balasubramania Rahim Bakish Pakkir Sahib. He died on 23rd February, 1967. The first defendant claimed to be the lawful successor on the ground of a nomination by the last Makkandhar in a registered will dated 13th December, 1964 (Exhibit B.-1). The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »