Chennai Court August 1967 Judgments
State of Madras Vs. K. Nandagopal Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1967
Reported in: [1968]22STC290(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. This tax case raises the question of jurisdiction ~ r the State of Madras to tax certain subsequent inter-State sales made 1 y the respondent to a local buyer by transfer of documents in the course of inter-State movement of the goods. The disputed turnover amounts to Rs. 5,296 subjected to tax at 7 per cent, under the proviso to Section 9(1) read with the proviso to Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is not in controversy that the goods initially moved out from the State of Gujarat to the respondent under an inter-State sale within the purview of Section 3(a) and that when they were in transit, he transferred the documents of title to a buyer in this State. It is again not in controversy that sales of the particular goods are exempt from tax in the State of Gujarat. Neither the respondent issued declarations in Form C to the Gujarat seller nor the latter certified to the former in Form E-I. Nevertheless, the revenue took the view that the subsequent s...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Ganesan Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Special Tahsil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1967
Reported in: (1968)1MLJ444
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner who is the owner of three survey numbers, R.S. Nos 185/6B, 185/8B and 185/15B, in Pinnathur village, is aggrieved against the acquisition of 19 cents out of the above three survey numbers by the respondent, State of Madras, for the purpose of opening a pathway to the Harijan colony. The respondent issued Section 4(1) notification, and along with it, it was also announced that as the matter was one of urgency, the enquiry under Section 5-A would be dispensed with. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 was notified on 20th March, 1963. The petitioner contends that he came to know of these acquisition proceedings only a long time later in 1965 when he found people attempting to plant stones for marking the pathway and that thereafter he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking for the issue of a Writ of certiorari questioning the land acquisition proceedings.2. The petitioner's contentions, on which he se...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswamy Vs. Rangaswamy Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1967
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ412
M. Natesan, J.1. The plaintiff whose suit for partition and separate possession with mesne profits has been dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case on certain preliminary issues has preferred this second appeal. The case of the plaintiff was that the entire suit properties belonged to his father as his self-acquisitions and that the father bequeathed the properties under a Will in favour of the plaintiff, his elder brother Thirumalaiswami and his mother the second defendant,, each legatee getting a third share in the properties. Thirumalaiswami, it is said, died, a boy and his share also devolved on the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that in the circumstances he became entitled to a two-third share in the properties, his mother impleaded as second defendant in the suit being entitled to the remaining one-third share. He would allege that during his minority his mother had executed an usufructuary mortgage and followed it by a sale in favour of the first defendan...
Tag this Judgment!S. Kumaraswamy (Deceased) and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1967
Reported in: [1968]70ITR532(Mad)
VEERASWAMI J. - This reference raises a question of limitation under the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121. We are concerned with the assessment years 1122 to 1124, Malayalam Era, corresponding to 1948-49 to 1950-51, the accounting period in each of the years commencing from August 17. Originally the assessments for these years were made on September 10, 1949, July 31, 1952 and November 29, 1952, respectively. In purported exercise of the power under section 47, the assessments were reopened and revised orders were made on July 12, 1955, in respect of the first year and July 29, 1955, in respect of the other years. By section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, the law relating to income-tax in operation in Part B States ceased to have effect except for purposes of levy, assessment and collection of income-tax and super-tax in respect of any period not included in the previous year for the purpose of assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the year ending on the 31st day of March,...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Sivaraman and anr. Vs. P.M. Shanmughasundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1967
Reported in: AIR1969Mad166
Sadasivam, J.1. The suit properties consisting of two houses bearing Door Nos. 4 and 5, South Hanumantharayar Koil Street, Erode, were purchased by one Karuppaswami Mudaliar, who died in 1944. The said Karuppuswami Mudaliar had two sons, Sivaraman and Samiappa. Sivaraman predeceased Karuppuswami in 1939 leaving his widow Karuppayee and three sons, Palaniappa, Shanmugham and Vyapuri. The other son Samiappa, the first defendant in the suit, married Kaveriammal as his first wife and through her he had a daughter Perianayaki alias Ghanambal, who is the second plaintiff in the suit, the first plaintiff being the husband of the said second plaintiff. Dhanalakshmi, the third defendant, is the second wife of Samiappa and the second defendant Sivaraman is the minor son of Samiappa through Dhanalakshmi. Karuppuswami Mudaliar executed a settlement deed Ex. A-2 dated 4-2-1940 in favour of Kaveriammal in respect of the suit properties and two other properties describing them as his self-acquired pr...
Tag this Judgment!Simpson and Co. Limited Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1967
Reported in: [1969]23STC374(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The main question we have to decide is as to whether the transactions in dispute as to bus-bodies are sales of goods or works contracts. The Tribunal in one of these cases and the Board of Revenue in the other, have expressed the. view that they are sales of goods and held that they are chargeable to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The Tax Case of 1965 pertains to the assessment year 1956-57 and the other, which is an appeal, the next year.2. The assessee is a registered company with limited liability and carries on business with its headquarters at Madras, which includes the manufacture and supply of bus-bodies. The disputed turnover in both the cases covers the supply of bus-bodies to the State Government under contracts entered into with them in the usual form of tender notice, offer and acceptance. The department as well as the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the contracts, read as a whole, amounted to sale of bus-bodies as finished units mad...
Tag this Judgment!Muniswami (M.) Vs. Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity System
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ89Mad
Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, M. Muniswami, was a lineman, grade I, employed under the State Electricity board at the time we are concerned with. Three charges were framed against him, one relating to the filing of a false petition against a superior officer, another leaving the station before the actual sanction of casual leave and the third, unauthorized extension of casual leave. Enquiry into these charges was held by the Divisional Engineer, Vellore, on 19 September 1964, and subsequent dates when witnesses were examined, but it is not in dispute that the lineman had applied for leave and was actually on leave on the dates when the enquiry was held and witnesses were examined in support of the charges. The petitioner had been sanctioned leave for the purpose of attending on his sick wife. In view of his having been on leave, he asked for postponement of the enquiry. The postponement was refused and the witnesses were examined on the ex parte basis by the enquiry officer. After...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. P.C. Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1967
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1378; (1968)1MLJ274
Alagiriswami, J.1. The Coimbatore Central Co. operative Stores was issued a permit in 1957 by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, for the export of 520 tons of Chillies to Ceylon. The purchaser in Ceylon was the Co-operative Wholesale Establishment. The Board of Directors of the Coimbatore Central Co-operative Stores allotted this quantity of Section 20 tons at follows:Pollachi Co-operative Sales Society 200 tonsUdamalpet Cooperative Sales Society 200 tonsDharapuram Co-operative Sales Society 50 tonsCoimbatore Co-operative MarketingSociety 20 tonsGobi Co-operative Sales Society 50 tons__________520 tonsAs against the 400 tons allotted to the Pollachi Co-operative Sales Society and Udamalpet Co- operative Sales Society, it is found that they exported only 3581 bags (40 bags are equal to a ton). The Dharapuram Co-operative Sales Society is said so have exported 3628 bags. The Coimbatore Co-operative Marketing Society 520 bags, the Gobi Co-operative Sales Society 32...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Sivaraman and ors. Vs. P.M. Shanmughasundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1967
Reported in: (1968)2MLJ284
R. Sadasivam, J. 1. The suit properties consisting of two houses bearing door Nos. 4 and 5, South Hanumantharayar Koil Street, Erode, were purchased by one Karuppuswami Mudaliar, who died in 1944. The said Karuppuswami Mudaliar had two sons, Sivaraman and Samiappa. Sivaraman predeceased Karuppuswami in 1939 leaving his widow Karuppayee and three sons, Palaniappa, Shanmugham and Vyapuri. The other son Samiappa, the first defendant in the suit, married Kaveriammal as his first wife and through her he had a daughter Perianayaki alias Gnanambal, who is the second plaintiff in the suit, the first plaintiff being the husband of the said second plaintiff. Dhanalakshmi, the third defendant, is the second wife of Samiappa and the second defendant Sivaraman is the minor son of Samiappa through Dhanalakshmi. Karuppuswami Mudaliar executed a settlement deed Exhibit A-2 dated 4th February, 1940 in favour of Kaveriammal in respect of the suit properties and two other properties describing them as hi...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami (K.R.) Vs. Director of Technical Education and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1967
Reported in: (1969)ILLJ600Mad
ORDERT. Venkatadri, J.1. In this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus, we have to consider whether the petitioner was reduced in rank as per the rules and regulations and conditions of service, and whether the impugned order was passed on an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, misinterpretation and misconstruction of the rules.2. The writ petitioner entered Government service in the year 1945 and was in charge of teaching and training students in the Government Cinematography and Sound Engineering section. Before ho joined Government service, he had served as a cameraman for four years in Motion Picture Producers (Combine), Ltd. While he was working as a cinema assistant in the Central Polytechnic, he was appointed as Maintenance Engineer, Films Division, Bombay, with effect from 29 November 1954, and, in his place, one B. sivathanu Pillai, much junior to the petitioner, was appointed. While he was employed as Maintenance Engineer, Films Division, Bombay, the Government of Madr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »