Chennai Court October 1968 Judgments
V.P. Vadivel Achari Vs. Madras Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Second Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC273(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions involve a common point and have been heard together. The assessee has been charged to sales tax on his transactions of sale of gold jewels. But we are concerned with the assessment years 1959-60 to 1963-64 ; except for the year 1963-64, it is a case of re-assessment for the other years. The assessee's case that he received gold with which he made jewels and supplied the same to the customers after collecting the labour charges was not accepted by the department as well as the Tribunal. But the finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee supplied gold jewels and in consideration therefor received equal weight of gold and labour charges for making jewels. Such transactions have been considered to be sales of goods. The question is whether this view is correct.2. 'Sale' has been defined by the Act as any transfer of the property in goods for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration. What is implied by 'other valuable consideration' is ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chinnapaiyan Alias Arumugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ511
K. Sadasivam, J.1. Appellant Chinnapaiyan alias Arumugham has been convicted under Sections 379 and 302, Indian Penal Code, for having committed theft of a silver waist-cord from the possession of the female child Rajeswari alias Nageswari, aged about 5 years, and caused the death of the said child in the course of the same transaction, by dashing her against a big stone at about 9 a.m., on 3rd October, 1967 at Jagir Ammapalayam village, and sentenced to R.I. for six months on the first charge and to death, subject to confirmation by this Court, on the second charge. The sentence of imprisonment was ordered to merge with the capital sentence. The appellant is the brothers' son of P.W. 1, Ayithal. The deceased child Rajeswari was the daughter of P.W. 8, Ganesan, the son of P.W. 1. On the morning of 3rd October, 1967, the appellant approached his aunt, P.W. 1, and asked her for a rupee saying that he was feeling giddy as he had not taken food. P.W. 1 told him that she had no money and of...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Vadivel Achari Vs. Madras Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Second Ad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ4
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. These petitions involve a common point and have been heard together. The assessee has been charged to sales tax on his transactions of sale of gold jewels. But we are concerned with the assessment years 1959-60 to 1963-64; except for the year 1963-64, it is a case of re-assessment for the other years. The assessee's case that he received gold with which he made jewels and supplied the same to the customers after collecting the labour charges was not accepted by the Department as well as the Tribunal. But the finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee supplied gold jewels and in consideration therefor received equal weight of gold and labour charges for making jewels. Such transactions have been considered to be sales of goods. The question is whether this view is correct.2. 'Sale' has been defined by the Act as any transfer of property in the goods for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration. What is implied by ' other valuable considerat...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnaswami Naicker Vs. Kandasami Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad81
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. In my view the decision of the Court below is correct. The summary order was made on 16th June 1966. There is no dispute that the suit should be instituted within a year of that date, and that, it should be in a representative capacity. Vide Madina Bibi v. Ismail Durga Association, ILR (1940) Mad 808 : AIR 1940 Mad 789. The suit was filed on 5th September 1966 and the written statement on 21st November 1966. The defendants pointed out, in the written statement, the defect, to wit, the suit was not in a representative capacity. The issues were framed on 28th November 1966 and the suit came up for trial twice, but was adjourned every time. The petition for amending the plaint, to make the suit a representative one, was filed only on 21st July 1967. The Court below took the view that the application should be dismissed on the ground of limitation.2. The view taken by the Court below is unsustainable. No doubt amendment of pleading should be freely allowed, at whateve...
Tag this Judgment!M. Krishnan Vs. Pankaj Jethalal Sha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad259
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. The only point in this petition is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal possesses the power to appoint a Commission for recording evidence of a witness in Bombay. The Tribunal held that it had the power in view of Section 110-C (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In my view, the Tribunal was right. No doubt. Rule 18 of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961 does not mention Order XXVI of the Civil Procedure Code. Even so, Sub-section (2) of Section 110-C is sufficiently wide to include the power. It speaks of the power of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses. The substance of this power is that, for the purpose of disposing of a claim before it, the Tribunal will have all the powers related to taking of evidence on oath and of enforcing attendance of witnesses, including the power to have evidence recorded on commission.2. But the power so entrusted to the Tribunal should be exercis...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnaswami Naicker Vs. Kandasami Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ393
ORDERK. Veeraswami, J.1. In my view the decision of the Court below is correct. The summary order was made on 16th June, 1966. There is no dispute that the suit should be instituted within a year of that date, and that, it should be in a representative capacity. Vide Madina Bibi v. Ismail Durga Association : AIR1940Mad789 , The suit was filed on 5th September, 1966 and the written statement on 21st November, 1966. The defendants pointed out, in the written statement, the defect, to wit, the suit was not in a representative capacity. The issues were framed on 28th November, 1966 and the suit came up for trial twice, but was adjourned every time. The petition for amending the plaint, to make the suit a representative one, was filed only on 21st July, 1967. The Court below took the view that the application should be dismissed on the ground of limitation.2. The view taken by the Court below is unsustainable. No doubt amendment of pleading should be freely allowed, at whatever stage it is ...
Tag this Judgment!M. Varuvel Nadar Vs. A. Varuvel Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad232
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He is a purchaser of the suit properties from P.W. 2, who had purchased them from one Mariamma, the daughter of one Devasahayam. This Devasahayam had four brothers, Mariaputhali, Chanthanakurisu, Mariandran and Anthonimuthu. The defendant is the son of Anthonimuthu. Chanthanakurisu also had a son called Anthonimuthu, who had two sons Siluvastian and Chanthanakurisu. Devasahayam, Chanthanakurisu and Anthonimuthu were admittedly entitled to 1/3rd share each in their family properties, as Mariaputhali and Mariandran seem to have died without any issues. Devasahayam sold to his brother Anthonimuthu a 1/4th share in suit items 3 to 6. Therefore, he still had with him a 1/3rd share in items 1 and 2 and a 1/12th share in items 3 to 6. It is this which Mariamma sold to P.W. 2. and P.W. 2 sold to the plaintiff. Chanthanakurisu's grandsons, Siluvastian and Chantanakurisu filed O.S. No. 98 of 1956 for partition and possession of their 1/3rd share. To this suit a...
Tag this Judgment!B. Raghuveeriah, Prop., L.B. Industries Vs. the National Small Industr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ99
M.M. Ismail, J.1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, by the defendant in C. S. No. 4 of 1968 on the file of this Court. The applicant-defendant and the plaintiff-respondent entered into a hire-purchase agreement dated 11th February, 1964, for the sale of one complete plant of bolts and nuts making machine by the respondent-plaintiff to the applicant-defendant. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that the machine was supplied to the applicant defendant but notwithstanding that supply the applicant-defendant failed to pay the first to sixth instalments payable under the agreement in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The respondent-plaintiff further avers in the plaint that the applicant-defendant failed to pay the instalments which fell due, in spite of repeated reminders made by the respondent-plaintiff and allowed the same to accumulate that the respondent-plaintiff took steps to retake possession of the machinery in exercise of the powe...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ramasrinivasan Vs. P. Shanmugham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad378
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The proceeding before us is a simple one in essence, and the facts are within a restricted scope. But it involves one question of some significance, on the principles which have to be applied when the State claims privilege under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 162 of that Act, with regard to the production of a record, viz. in this case, the record by a police officer, under departmental instructions, of a public speech made by a citizen.2. Very briefly stated, the affidavit of the petitioner (Ramasrinivasan) is to the effect that the respondent (P. Shanmugbam, M. L. A.) addressed a public meeting on 5th May 1968 at Pondicherry, during the course of which meeting, inter alia, he referred to the actions of a certain Sri Farook Maricar, while that gentleman was Chief Minister of the State, in wreaking vengeance upon those who were responsible for his downfall. He is then supposed to have said, according to the affidavit of the petition...
Tag this Judgment!Perumalsami Konar (Died) by L.Rs. Vs. Dr. C.K. Rajagopal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ304
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The first four petitions are by the tenants and the next three are by the landlord. C.R.P. Nos. 413 and 416 of 1967 are by the same tenant. The landlord filed three applications before the Rent Court, Coimbatore, for fixation of fair rent against the three tenants, who were respondents in his petitions. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 1748 of 1967, who is the petitioner in C.R.Ps. 413 and 416 of 1967, was cultivating 7 acres 25 cents of land. Out of this, 24 cents was taken as not fit for cultivation and the fair rent was fixed for 7 acres 1 cent at the rate of Rs. 1,320 per acre. The value of straw was fixed at Rs. 280 and one-fifth was sought to be added to the fair rent. The Rent Court considered that only 6 acres 71 cents was fit for cultivation and at the rate of Rs. 1,320 per acre as the fair rent, fixed the fair rent payable at Rs. 2,952-40. On appeal by the tenant as well as by the landlord, the Rent Tribunal took 7 acres 1 cent as the cultivable land and als...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »