Chennai Court July 1968 Judgments
Nagalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Rajagopala Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ524
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. By a will dated 21st August, 1907, one Srinivasa Iyengar bequeathed certain properties to his daughter-in-law, Alamelu. The interpretation of the will and its effect is the question to be decided in the second appeal. The plaintiffs are the daughters of one of Alamelu Ammal's daughters, Rajammal. The defendants are alienees from Rajammal herself. The question is whether the effect of the will is to give the absolute estate to Alamelu Ammal, so that her daughter as streedhana heir would only have a life interest in the property and, therefore, after her death in 1953, the defendants would have no further rights in the property or whether what Alamaleu got was a life interest and Rajammal took an absolute interest after her and the defendants therefore get absolute title to the suit properties. The relevant portions of the will are found in page-6 of the trial Court's judgment. The Courts below have held that the effect of that will is to give a life interest to Ala...
Tag this Judgment!Jayarama Mudaliar Vs. Ayyaswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ209
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. One Muniappa had three sons, Doraiswami, Chidambara and Govindaswami. Doraiswami died on, 24th September, 1937, leaving two sons Munuswami, the first defendant, and Ayyaswami, the plaintiff. Defendants 2 to 5 are the first defendant's sons. Chidambara is the 6th defendant. Govinda-swami's sons are defendants 7, 8 and 9, and his widow is the 10th defendant. The 12th defendant, who is the appellant before this Court, is an alienee from the .first defendant under Exhibit B-7, dated 7th July, 1958, in respect of items 5, 15 to 19, 24 and 28 of the ' B' Schedule; under Exhibit B-51, dated 15th July, 1960, of items 4, 18, 20, 23, to 27 and 31 of the same schedule under a revenue sale and from 1st defendant Exhibit B-15, dated 24th July, 1960 of item 32. It should be mentioned that Exhibit B-15 relates to the sale of an oil engine and pumpset. In respect of the last item, both the Courts below have held that the sale of this item to the 12th defendant is valid and is not...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Dn. Vs. Arasan Match ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad422; [1969]23STC152(Mad)
1. This is a Tax Case filed by the- State directed against an order of the Tribunal which, in respect of the five transactions, took the view that they were outside depot sale and were not inter-State in character. The assessee has its headquarters in Sivakasi in this State, and has depots in Mysore State, one at Sholapur and another at Devanagere. These depots collect orders from local buyers of Mysore State, transmit them to the head office with instructions to despatch and deliver goods directly to the buyer. While despatching the goods the head office writes to the buyer, vide letter dated 11-7-1960 to Ramesh Vajirkar, Safety Match Dealer, Bijapur to pay the lorry charges and clear the goods. After the arrival of the goods at the destination, the depot concerned in the Mysore State prepares the bills or invoices which include also the transport charges and collect the money from the buyer.2. The Tribunal took the view, as we said that the transactions constitute outside sales. We a...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insulated Cable Co. of India Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1968
Reported in: [1968]22STC475(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The order imposing penalty is clearly wrong and in excess of the jurisdiction under Section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The return was no doubt filed belatedly. But it was accepted. Once it is accepted and an assessment made on that basis without invoking best judgment, Section 12 does not authorise the revenue to levy penalty. This principle has been laid down by this Court in Bata Shoe Company (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer [1968] 21 S.T.C. 135 which applies squarely to this case. The tax case is allowed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Periaswamy Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ399
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. In Writ Petition No. 4259 of 1965, V. Periaswamy, who was assessed to tax under the Madras Entertainment Tax Act, 1939, for the weeks ending 13th July, 1965 to 27th July, 1965 prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Writ Petition N0.4260 of 1965, the same Periaswamy prays for the issue of a writ of Prohibition restraining the respondent, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavani, from taking any proceedings for compounding the offence, or prosecution in lieu of composition in respect of the returns relating to the entertainment tax for the period 13th July, 1965 to 27th July, 1965.2. The circumstances which have led to the filing of these writ petitions as revealed in the affidavits filed by the petitioner are briefly the following : The petitioner in accordance with Section 7-A of the Madras Entertainments Tax Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act, regularly submitted weekly returns of entertainment tax for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mottur Hajee Abdul Rahman and Co. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad232; [1968]22STC472(Mad)
ORDERIsmail, J.1. The petitioner in these petitions filed W. P. Nos. 1857 and 1858 of 1968 challenging the validity of Item 7 of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales-tax Act 1959 and prayed for writs of Prohibition restraining the State of Madras and the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Vaniyambadi, North Arcot Dt., the first respondent in these petitions from taking all further assessment proceedings in respect of the years 1967-68 and 1968-69 enforcing any of the provisions in Item 7 of the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. At the same time, the petitioner also filed C. M. P. 7154 of 1968 and 7155 of 1968 in the said writ petitions praying for stay of all further assessment proceedings for the respective years pending disposal of the said writ petitions. The writ petitions and the Civil Miscellaneous petitions carne up for admission and on 7th May, 1968, this Court directed the issue of rule nisi in the writ petitions and passed an interim order of s...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Periakaruppan Vs. P. Mayalagan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad83
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. Both these revision proceedings involve only one short ground, in two suits on a negotiable instrument, all the pleas upon which the executants resisted the decrees of the suits have been negatived on the merits. But, in each of these two suits, the same plaintiff sues under an assignment in his favour, constituting him as an agent for collection, even on a minimal interpretation. It is claimed that the principal was alive, at least when one of the two suits was filed, and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner claims that the principal was alive on the date of institution of both the suits.2. However that might be, the principal died shortly thereafter. The suits have been dismissed, though they were otherwise entirely justified on the merits of the findings, on the short point that the agency for collection having come to an end with the death of the principal, the suits were no longer maintainable.3. In my view, this is a quite erroneous conceptio...
Tag this Judgment!Rangarathinam Pillai Vs. Labour Court and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1968
Reported in: (1969)IILLJ416Mad
ORDERRamakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner, Rangarathinam Pillai, was employed as an accountant under respondent 2, the management of Coimbatore Murugan Mills, Ltd., Coimbatore. The management terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 25 September 1958. As an industrial dispute was pending at that time before the industrial tribunal, Madras, the petitioner filed an application before the same industrial tribunal under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging the termination order. The industrial tribunal, after going into the merits of the case, passed an award on 23 January 1959, holding that the termination of the petitioner's service was in contravention of Section 33 of the Act, and directed that the petitioner should be reinstated with back-wages. This award was published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 18 February 1959, and under the rules, the management ought to have enforced it by 18 March 1959, but it did not do so. It filed Writ Petition N...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. Baliga Lighting Equipment (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1968
Reported in: [1969]23STC154(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The Tribunal finds that there were about 400 transactions effected by the company out of which only fourteen customers asked for cover of the risk in transit of the goods and the charges incurred in that connection were recovered from the customers. It also appears that the insurance charges were independent of the price and not included therein. That being the case, the insurance charges cannot form part of the turnover of the dealer. Rule 6 which provides for exemption or deductions covers only cases where but for the deduction the relative amount would be part of the price. The rule does not cover a case in which the amount in question is not part of the price, for in that case no exemption is at all required. Our attention has been invited to the Explanation to the definition of turnover in the Act. But as we said, the insurance charges are incurred to cover the risk in transit of the goods and we cannot view the expenditure as for something done in respect of the ...
Tag this Judgment!C.A. Ganapathy Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Vellore Electricity Sy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ202
ORDERP. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is one C. A. Ganapathy. He was employed as a Clerk in the former Madras Electricity Department from 14th July, 1947. He was promoted as telephone mechanic on 9th September, 1955. He was elected as the Secretary of the Madras Government Electricity Employees' Union, Papanasam. He was then transferred to Vellore. The Electricity Department of the Madras Government was abolished on 1st July, 1957, and in its place the Madras State Electricity Board, a statutory body, was constituted, and the petitioner continued his employment under the State Electricity Board. He was elected as the Secretary of the Madras State Electricity Board Employees' Union, Vellore System, consisting of about 2,000 workers, soon after 1st November, 1957 when he joined the Vellore Electricity System. Several charges were framed against him at this period by the Department on one ground or other. The petitioner alleges that the charges were framed agains...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »