Chennai Court September 1968 Judgments
Kumara Kangaya Goundar Vs. Arumugha Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad179
Natesan, J. 1. The substantial point in this second appeal is whether the decree in O. S. 386 of 1953 on the file of the Sub Court Coimbatore is vitiated and a nullity as against the plaintiff for want of proper and effective representation therein of the plaintiff who was a minor during its pendency. The plaintiff who seeks to have the decree against him set aside contends that, when his father as his natural guardian was available and in every way interested in his welfare as his only son, his paternal grandfather was appointed as guar-dian and the gross negligence of this guardian in the conduct of the suit resulted ia a decree being passed against him. 2. First the relevant facts of the case may be set out briefly. The properties in dispute in this suit belonged to one Palaniswami Goundan. He settled the suit properties on his granddaughter, the second defendant in the suit and one Muthuswami who had been proposed as her husband, both of them minors, under the settlement deed dated...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamurthi and Company, Tiruppur Vs. State of Madras Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Mad265; [1969]23STC1(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. These are petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution by different assessees, but as they raise a common question as to the alleged invalidity of the Madras General Sales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1967 on the ground of its unreasonable retrospective operation, they have been heard together. Three of the assessees are each a public limited liability company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and are leading dealers in mineral oils, including furnace oil, lubricating oils and greases. The other assessee is a partnership firm and a dealer in similar oils which it purchases from one or the other of the leading dealers and sells in retail. The first sales of lubricating oils and greases, under Entry 47 in the first Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, were charged to a single point tax at six per cent. With effect from April 1, 1964, Madras Act VII of 1964 substituted it by a fresh entry, lubricating oils, all kinds of mineral oils (no...
Tag this Judgment!P.R.V.R. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ210
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The revision petitioner was convicted under Rules 30 (2) and 36 of Schedule IV of the District Municipalities Act, 1920 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for alleged wilful default of payment of property tax due from him and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 and was further directed to pay the house tax of Rs. 600-86P., by the Sub-Magistrate, Karaikudi in C.C.No. 1657 of 1966. On appeal, the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram at Devakottai, confirmed the conviction and sentence.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two points, namely, that the prosecution was not maintainable as it was barred by limitation in respect of the alleged default of payment of property tax for the first half year 1963-64 and secondly, that in respect of the prosecution for the second half year, the procedure prescribed in Rule 29 of the Act in that, the notice required under that Rule was not proved to have been served and that, therefore, the prosecutio...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi), Represented by the Secretary, Finance Ministry a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ32
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The Union of India and the Collector of Salem, who were the defendants in the suit, are the appellants. The plaintiff-firm sold a bus MDC 4461 to one Peer Khan Sahib under a hire purchase agreement. This Peer Khan. Sahib was in arrears of income-tax and in pursuance of a certificate for recovery of arrears of income-tax due by him issued under Section 46 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Collector of Salem attached the bus, and put it up for sale. The plaintiff put in a claim for the amount due to him under the hire purchase agreement. He seems to have been asked to produce a number of documents in support of his claim. But in spite of all that he did, nothing was heard about his claim and ultimately the bus was sold. The plaintiff thereafter claimed the amount due to him, but that was not paid. He then filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises, claiming that the bus was sold on an understanding between him and the Collector that it was to be sol...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarathinam Pillai Vs. Mahadevier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ492
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. In my-view, this revision will clearly have to be allowed, on the findings of fact. The first Court allowed the eviction of the tenant, and the tenant instituted an appeal. The main ground was that the tenant had committed ' wilful default' in payments of rent for a total period of nine months. At least with regard to three months, out of this period, the tenant appears to have sent the rent by money orders, though not to the correct address of the landlord. This is rather curious, since the landlord claims that he was residing in practically the same premises, to the knowledge of the tenant, and that, there was neither justification nor reason for the tenant to send the money orders to any other address. However, I am willing to assume that, with regard to the three months in question, the default cannot be characterised as' wilful', for the simple reason that there was an attempt by the tenant to tender rent by money orders.2. But, there is, in any event, a...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. K. Rathnam Nadar.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1968
Reported in: [1969]71ITR433(Mad)
Three questions have been referred for decision under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, two of them at the instance of the revenue, and one at the instance of the assessee. The question referred at the instance of the revenue are :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 65,898 should not be assessed in 1960-61 as capital gains.2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the substitution of the fair market price of the goodwill as on January 1, 1954 ?'And the question referred at the instance of the assessee is :'Whether there was any capital gains at all in respect of goodwill liable for assessment in relation to the facts of the case pertaining to section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?'The reference at the instance of the revenue was made by the Tribunal;...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Dorairaj Vs. K. Kr. Karuppiah Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad119
1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 16 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court Devakottai, against the judgment and decree dismissing his suit. The suit is for taking accounts of a dissolved partnership and is directed against the first defendant Karuppiah Ambalam. The suit has been dismissed on two preliminary grounds--(1) that in part it involved the determination of title to immoveable property situate in Malaya a foreign territory; and (2) limitation.2. The following genealogical tree will show the relationship of the parties--SOLAYAPPA (died on 19-1-1946)|_____________________________________________________ | | Ayyachami (died on 30-3-50) Periannan alias Muthukannu Married visalakshi (died on 14-5-50), married (2nd deft) Ponnalagi (3rd deft) | |_______________________________Minor Dorairaj (plff) | | Solaimalai Ramaswami(4th deft) (5thdeft)The plaintiffs grandfather Solayappa and the first defendant Karuppiah Ambalam were sons of sisters. They...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Dorairaj Also Called Karuppiah Pillai Alias Aiyaswami by His Nex ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1968
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ348
K.S. Venkataraman, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 16 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Devakottai, against the judgment and decree dismissing his suit. The suit is for taking accounts of a dissolved partnership and is directed against the first defendant Karuppiah Ambalam. The suit has been dismissed on two preliminary grounds : (i) that in part it involved the determination of title to immovable property situate in Malaya, a foreign territory; and (ii) limitation.2. The following geneological tree will show the relationship of the parties: Solayappa (died on 19-1-1946) | ___________________________________ | | | | Ayyachamy (died on 30-3-50) Periannan alias Muthukannu Married Visalakshi (died on 14-5-50). Married (2nd defendant) Ponnalagi (3rd defendant). | | | | Minor Dorairaj (Plaintiff) | __________________________ | | Solaimalai Ramaswami (4th defendant). (5th defendant).The plaintiff's grandfather Solayappa and the first defenda...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Abdulla and Bros. and anr. Vs. Check Post Officer, Kandaigoundanc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1968
Reported in: AIR1970Mad25; [1968]22STC552(Mad)
1. The petitioner in these two writ petitions K. P. Abdulla & Bros., by its partner is a general merchant at Court Road, Calicut. The respondent is the Check Post Officer, Kandaigoundanchavadi, Coimbatore, which is on the border of Coimbatore District in the Madras State and Calicut in the Kerala State. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 1104 of 1965 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing the order of the respondent dated 2nd March, 1965, levying on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 1,000 in lieu of confiscation of the goods, passed under Section 42(3)(a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1965 is for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondent directing redelivery of 45 bags of maida, 20 bags of alia and 20 bags of khandasari sugar belonging to the petitioner and which are in the possession of the respondent. The two writ petitions are connected, because the penalty, the subject-matter of...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Abdulla and Brothers by Its Partner K.P. Ummar Vs. the Check-post ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1968
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ144
K. Veeraswami, J.1. These appeals arise from an order of Ramakrishnan, J., dismissing two connected petitions, one to quash a penalty of Rs. 1,000 in lieu of confiscation of goods under Section 42 (3) (a) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the other for a direction to the respondents to deliver to the appellant the goods which had been seized and confiscated while on transit at Kandaigoundan Chavadi check-post, which is the border of Coimbatore district in this State, and Calicut in the Kerala State. The learned Judge declined to accept that the said provision is invalid, and held that R. S. Jhaver v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (1965) 16 S.T.C. 708, and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. R. S. Jhaver (1968) 1 S.C.J. 121 : (1967) 2 I.T.J. 919 :(1968) 1 A.W.R. 43 : (1968)1 M.L.J 43 : (1967) 20 S.T.C. 453. in which this Court held, the Supreme Court agreeing with it that Section 41 (4) was invalid,were distinguishable.2. The lorry K. L. R. 3919, was searched by the Check...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »