Chennai Court January 1969 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.
The State of Madras Vs. K.A. Joseph
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad155; (1970)ILLJ291Mad
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. In our view, the learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) had every justification to make an interim order in G. M. P. No. 17995 of 1968 in W. P. No. 4637. of 1968, cancelling the suspension of the concerned Officer, under the circumstances. It is sufficient for us to observe that a period of nearly ten months had elapsed since the Officer was first placed under suspension, and that, on an earlier representation, the Court directed that charges should be framed within three months, and that, if that was not done, the petitioner could approach the Court, again, for redress, and, the outcome is the order from which the writ appeal is sought to be filed.2. Quite apart from the broad principle that we have reiterated so often in the past, that this Court will not ordinarily interfere by way of appeal, from the exercise of an interlocutory discretion by a learned judge of this Court, by virtue of his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, there is a graver and m...
Radhika Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1969
Reported in: [1969]74ITR661(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. The assessee is a public limited company engaged at the relevant years in the manufacture and sale of yarn. It installed machinery, the cost of which amounted to Rs. 10,59,634 for the year ended March 31, 1958, to Rs. 5,82,142 for the next year and to Rs. 3,12,470 for the third year. But production commenced from January 1, 1958. For the year ended March 31, 1958, there was no assessment. In the previous year ended March 3,1', 1959, the assessee made a profit of Rs. 89,034 according to its books out of which it distributed as dividend Rs. 60,726 and set apart Rs. 7,719 as development rebate reserve. After adjusting the balance of Rs. 20,589 against the loss of the earlier year, the assessee filed a return showing a loss of Rs. 64,247. The assessment was completed by fixing the loss at Rs. 60,693. In the next year, the assessee made a profit of Rs. 1,83,372. Out of this sum was distributed as dividend a sum of Rs. 78,582 ; a sum of Rs. 67,621 was set apart as developmen...
The State of Madras by the Secretary to Government, Industries, Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ242
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. In our view, the learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) had every justification to make an interim order in CM.P. No. 17995 of 1968 in W.P. No. 4637 of 1968, cancelling the suspension of the concerned Officer, under the circumstances. It is sufficient for us to observe that a period of nearly ten months had elapsed since the Officer was first placed under suspension, and that, on an earlier representation, the Court directed that charges should be framed within three months, and that, if that was not done, the petitioner could approach the Court, again, for redress. After an expiry of a further period of six months the petitioner approached the learned Judge for redress, and, the outcome is the order from which the writ appeal is sought to be filed.2. Quite apart from the broad principle that we have reiterated so often in the past, that this Court will not ordinarily interfere, by way of appeal, from the exercise of an interlocutory discretion by a learned Judge of th...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Revenue Board, Madras Vs. Swami Go ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad1
1. The short question for consideration in this case is, whether an instrument by which a vendor of immovable property who had taken an agreement for reconveyance from the vendee, gives up that right, is a "conveyance" falling under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, or a ' release ' falling under Article 55; an alternative suggestion is that it is a "deed of cancellation" falling under Article17. The respondent and his brothers purchased a certain property from one Kaliammal and others under a Registered sale deed on 7th April, 1958, for a consideration of Rs. 5,000. On the very same day, and as part of the same transaction the vendees executed an agreement for reconveyance of the property for the same consideration of Rs. 5,000, of which Rs. 10 was paid as consideration for the agreement of reconveyance. On 1st June 1959, the vendors executed the instrument in question, styled as a deed of release of the agreement for reconveyance. It is contended for the Revenue that ...
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. Simp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad7
1. The point involved in this Reference is a short but an interesting one. Under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, there is a statutory power in the Government, not merely to reduce the stamp duty upon any particular category of instruments, but to remit the stamp duty altogether. Since the provisions of any Act have to be read harmoniously, as far as possible, Section 9 has clearly to be construed as a limitation or restriction upon the scope of Section 3, which is the charging section, and which specifies the instruments chargeable with duty under the Act. This power under Section 9 is to be exercised, according to the Legislature, " by rule or order published in the Official Gazette." Under Section 76 (2) of the Stamp Act, "All Rules published as required by this section shall, upon such publication, have effect as if enacted by this Act." The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The Respondent (Messrs. Simpson and General Finance Co., Limited, Madras) executed an in...
Antoniswamy Vs. Anna Manickam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad91
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur, under Section 10 read with Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, for dissolution of the marriage as between the petitioner and the first respondent, on the facts of the record.2. The evidence in this case is very simple, and within a brief compass. The parties are Indian Christians, and the evidence of the petitioner is that he married the first respondent 18 years ago at Ammapettai. They lived for about six years at Saliamangalam, immediately after the marriage. In the year 1951 the petitioner was appointed as watchman of the Raja Mirasdar Hospital, Thaniavur, and he, thereupon, proceeded to Thaniavur along with the first respondent and the two lived together there. The first respondent lived with the petitioner only till 1963, and she then deserted the petitioner, ran away from him, and began living in illicit intimacy with the second respondent. From 1955 onwards she had been living separat...
Jayajothi and Company Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1969
Reported in: [1969]23STC321(Mad)
Veeraswami, J.1. Under these transactions covered by five contracts a total turnover of Rs. 3,05,211.12 has been charged to tax on the basis that they are local sales. The revenue as well as the Tribunal did not dispute or say that there was no inter-State movement of the goods occasioned by the relative contracts which the Tribunal examined. But the Tribunal's view that they are local transactions is rested on the ground that neither the place of despatch nor any terms regarding the movement of goods has been agreed upon. But the place of despatch is noted in the Tribunal's order itself in the tabulated statement in the case of each of the transactions. It may be that it did not find a place in the contract. That, in our opinion, is of no significance, because what is important is whether there is inter-State movement of goods from one State to the other occasioned by the contract, not that such movement is occasioned from a particular place from out-of-State. The other part of the re...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue Vs. Simpson ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1969
Reported in: (1969)1MLJ635
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. The point involved in this Reference is a short but an interesting one. Under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, there is a statutory power in the Government, not merely to reduce the stamp duty upon any particular category of instruments, but to remit the stamp duty altogether. Since the provisions of any Act have to be read harmoniously, as far as possible, Section 9 has clearly to be construed as a limitation or restriction upon the scope of Section 3, which is the charging section, and which specifies the instruments chargeable with duty under the Act. This power under Section 9 is to be exercised, according to the Legislature, ' by rule or order published in the Official Gazette.' Under Section 76 (2) of the Stamp Act, 'All Rules published as required by this section shall, upon such publication, have effect as if enacted by this Act.' The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The Respondent (Messrs. Simpson and General Finance Co., Limited...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Revenue Board Vs. Swami Gound ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1969
Reported in: (1969)2MLJ93
M. Natesan, J.1. The short question for consideration in this case is, whether an instrument by which a vendor of immovable property who had taken an agreement for reconveyance from the vendee, gives up that right, is a 'conveyance' falling under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, or a ' release ' falling under Article 55; an alternative suggestion is that it is a 'deed of cancellation' falling under Article 17. The respondent and his brothers purchased a certain property from one Kaliammal and others under a Registered sale deed on 7th April, 1958, for a consideration of Rs. 5,000. On the very same day, and as part of the same transaction the vendees executed an agreement for reconveyance of the property for the same consideration of Rs. 5,000, of which Rs. 10 was paid as consideration for the agreement of reconveyance. On 1st June 1959, the vendors executed the instrument in question, styled as a deed of release of the agreement for reconveyance. It is contended for th...
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad10
1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, and, the question referred to us is whether the instrument under consideration amounts to a mortgage falling under Article 40 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, as well as a bond falling under Article 15 and a pledge falling under Article 6.2. It is seen, on a perusal of the instrument, that with reference to an anterior contract, under which the second party to the instrument had advanced a sum of Rs. 40,000, for the production and completion of talkie picture "Kannadi Maligai," on the contract failing, the instrument in question styled deed of agreement came into existence. As per this document the first party agreed to repay to the second party the said sum of Rupees 40,000 with interest, under the terms and conditions set out in the document. The material parts of the document, with which we are now concerned, are found in Clause 4 and Clause 7. Clause 4 provides for the payment of Rs. 10,000, on the date of signing of t...