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.
P.M. Chinnayya Kurumba Goundar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Repres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ383
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. These writ petitions deal with connected matters and therefore they were heard together. The petitioners in these writ petitions seek for relief against the operation of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (Madras Act (XXVII of 1949), which has been extended to certain well-known jagirs on the Kalriyan Hills, known as Jadaya Goundar Jagir and Kurumba Goundar Jagir. The South Arcot District Gazetteer refers to a third similar jagir on the same hills called Ariya Goundar Jagir. But we are concerned in these writ petitions only with the first two jagirs. The present proprietor of Kurumba Goundar Jagir is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1896 of 1965 and the first petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 1571 of 1964 and 4622 of 1965, and the present proprietor of Jadaya Goundar Jagir is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1828 of 1964. The principal contentions of the petitioners in the writ petitions can be set down briefly as under.2. The petitione...
P.M.S. and Co. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1967
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ226
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The appellants are licensed plumber and Sanitary Engineers. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Nagercoil, brought in turnover of Rs. 63,591-30 as exigible to tax. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, deleted from the above a turnover of Rs. 41,257-99 on the ground that there was no passing of property in the goods supplied by the appellants until the work involved was completed in accordance with the specification of the other party The Board of Revenue, in revision disagreed with the reasoning of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and brought to tax the turnover deleted by him and rested its conclusion on the decision in Udani Engineering Co. v. State of Madras T.C. No. 55 of 1960.2. Aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue, the assesses have filed this, appeal. Mr. S. Swaminathan contends that by reason of the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court and in particular the decision of this Court in General Electric Co. of India Pr...
Narayana Chettiar Vs. Rangaswamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ445
M. Natesan, J.1. In this Second Appeal by the plaintiff mortgagee in a suit for sale, the question involved is one of limitation. The mortgage is a combination of a simple mortgage and an usufructuary mortgage, that is, a possessory mortgage containing a personal covenant for payment. The mortgage deed is Exhibit A-l, dated 17th May, 1927, securing a sum of Rs. 1,000, under the terms of the mortgage the plaintiff mortgagee was to enjoy the properties mortgaged in lieu of interest for a period of five years and the mortgagor undertook to repay the mortgage amount when wanted in any year at the close of the agricultural season i.e., after the expiry of the period of five years and redeem the mortgage. It is stated that on the date of the said mortgage itself, the mortgaged properties were leased by the mortgagee to the mortgagor for a period of five years, Exhibit A-5 being the lease deed. According to the plaintiff, the mortgagor enjoyed the properties under the lease but paid only for ...
A. Narasinga Rao and anr. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ622
ORDERP.S. Kailasam, J.1. This petition is filed by the owners of premises No. 1/1, Sydoji Lane Triplicane, Madras, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State of Madras and the Accommodation Controller to release the portion in the ground floor of the said premises No. 1/1, Sydoji Lane, occupied by the 3rd respondent The two petitioners, husband and wife, are the joint owners of the said premises. The premises consists of two flats the ground floor portion being occupied by two tenants, one of whom is the State Government. The portion occupied by the State Government was allotted by the State Government to the 3rd respondent R. Mathrubutham, who was employed as Upper Division Clerk in the Central Control Organisation of the Postmaster-General's Office, Madras. On 27th August 1964, the petitioners applied to the Government for release of the portion allotted by the Government to the 3rd respondent for their own personal occupation as the 2nd petitioner had undergone an abdom...
Gordon Woodroffe and Company (Madras) Private Ltd. Vs. the State of Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1967
Reported in: [1968]21STC120(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. The matter relates to the assessment year 1961-62 and to a turnover of Rs. 71,225.21. According to the assessee, who is the petitioner, this turnover consisted of sales of component parts in respect of which he filed declaration in Form XVII at the time of check of accounts and before the final order of assessment was made. He claimed that the sales were chargeable to tax at the concessional rate of one per cent. under Section 3(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The revenue as well as the Tribunal declined to allow the claim and they have agreed in charging the turnover at six per cent.2. The only point, therefore, is whether the turnover was chargeable only as claimed by the petitioner. The view of the revenue as well as the Tribunal was that inasmuch as the declarations in Form XVII were not attached to the monthly returns submitted by the petitioner, they had to be ignored with the result that Section 3(3) would be inapplicable. This view is clearly wrong. Se...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division Vs. R.V. Rami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC217(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. In this case the original order of assessment was made on 15th April, 1958, under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. This order was the subject-matter of an appeal under Section 11 of that Act. The appellate authority on 3rd October, 1958, revised the original order, which was given effect to by the original authority passing a fresh order dated 30th October, 1958. On 14th February, 1962, the Assessment Commercial Tax Officer, in purported exercise of his power under Section 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, called upon the assessee to show cause why the turnover should not be enhanced as having escaped assessment. Actually, this officer passed an order dated 28th March, 1962, including a certain amount, of turnover as having escaped assessment. The Tribunal held that the last order was passed without jurisdiction.2. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right. The assessment, as we said, was under the old Act. The old Act was repealed ...
Paramasivam Chettiar Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1667; (1968)1MLJ255
ORDERKrishnaswami Reddy, J.1. Though several points were raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, only one point was pressed be. fore me, viz., that First Class Magistrate (Executive), Pattukottai, had no jurisdiction to tender pardon to the two approvers, as the sanction obtained by him from the Additional District Magistrate, Tanjore, was invalid.2. What happened in this case was the First Class Magistrate of Pattukottai during the investigation of the case/tendered pardon under Section 337(1), Criminal P.C. to two approvers on the sanction given by the Additional District Magistrate. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the Additional District Magistrate had no powers to accord sanction to the First Class Magistrate for tendering pardon under Section 337(1), Criminal P.C. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel, it is necessary to set out the relevant provision of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 337, Clause (1), Criminal Procedure Code is a...
M. Venkataraman Alias Muthu Venkataraman Vs. State of Madras, Represen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1967
Reported in: (1967)2MLJ367
ORDERK.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This application has been put in by M. Venkataraman who was adjudicated insolvent by this Court on his own petition on 19th October, 1966. An interim protection under Section 25 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act was given to him on 26th October, 1966. On 17th October, 1966, however a criminal complaint had been filed against him by one Harigopal Agarwal accusing him of an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, namely of obtaining of sum of Rs. 3,660 by false representations of offering to sell some land. The charge-sheet was filed by the Police in the Court of 8th Presidency Magistrate on 3rd January, 1967. The present application has been filed for stay of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate pending termination of the proceedings by way of discharge in the insolvency petition. The present application purports to be filed under Section 18 of the Act which says:The Court may, at any time after the making of an order of adjudication stay...
State of Madras Vs. Dunlop Rubber Company (India) Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1967
Reported in: [1973]32STC648(Mad)
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The point relates to discount allowed to be deducted from the turnover. The Tribunal took the view that the discount squarely falls within Clause (iii) to explanation (2) of Clause (r) to Section 2 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. We are in entire agreement with this conclusion. What is, however, argued for the revenue is that the discount was not allowed with reference to any particular sale or purchase, but as an incentive for prompt payment of the aggregate of price at the time of settlement. This does not impress us. The only relation between the parties to the transaction was that of vendor and purchaser and the discount allowed could not but be in relation to the sales. It makes no difference whether it was allowed in a lump sum or proportionately to each of the sales or purchases. In substance the character of the discount is the same. The petition is dismissed....
The Government of Madras Vs. Madurai Braided Cord and Tape Producers C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC470(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This case relates to the assessment year 1959-60 and to the turnover of Rs. 12,678.75. This turnover consists of inter-State sales of braided cord, lamp wicks and braided ropes of the size of about 1/4' diameter. The Tribunal considered :They are braided by machinery and being a string that is also cord does not seem to take it out of the category of laces. In fact they are after pressing them through another machine cut into small pieces and made into shoe-laces.2. In its opinion, braided cords were laces within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The turnover was, therefore, held to be exempt from tax, under Section 8 read with item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act. The State has come up to this Court, the contention being that the exemption under the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is only applicable to local sales.3. In T.C. No. 283 of 1964 (The Government of Madras v. Madurai Braided Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »