Chennai Court November 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.
K.G. Ponnuswami Chettiar, Ex-partner, Dhanalakshmi Oil Mills Vs. the S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1969
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ237
G. Ramanujam, J.1. In this tax revision the assessee who is a dealer in groundnut oil challenges the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 106 of 1964. The assessee was assessed originally by the assessing authority for the year 1957-58 by an order dated 30th October, 1958 under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the old Act. In the Assessment order the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer worked out the amount which the assessee will be entitled by way of deduction under Rule 18 (A) of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, in a way different from the one provided in Rule 5(1). That is, he found out the tax paid on the quantity of kernel which went into the production of oil sold by the assessee and deducted the same from the tax payable on the sale value of the oil, while the said Rule 5(1) allows only a deduction of the turnover of groundnut kernel from the gross turnover of the oil manufactured ...
Swamy and Co. (Tanners) Vaniambadi by V. Narayanaswami Senior partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ232
S. Maharajan, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common order passed by the learned District Judge, Vellore, directing the appellants to pay the employees compensation under Section 40(1) of the Employees State Insurance Act to the E.S.I. Corporation for two years. The appellants are running a tannery in Vellore area in Vaniambadi. Admittedly the tanning process is being carried on without the aid of any power, although in pumping water, which is used during the tanning process a diesel engine is used. The question arises whether the appellants are conducting a factory within the meaning of Section 2, sub-clause 12 of the Employees State Insurance Act. That clause defines a factory to mean any premises whereon 20 or more persons are working and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power. In view of the admission that no part of the tanning process is being carried on with the aid of power, I have little doubt that the appellants cannot...
Elumalai Vs. the Management of Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ233
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J.1. Originally this writ petition was filed by 72 persons against a common order of the Labour Court, Madras, dismissing their respective petitions filed under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Kailasam, J., by an order dated 27th March, 1967, held that a single writ petition by the 72 persons was not maintainable and each one of them will have to file a separate petition, since the cause of action and the rights agitated were different. After the order of Kailasam J., the writ petition was filed by one of the 72 persons, namely, Elumalai, with the result, as far as the other 71 persons are concerned, they arc not before this Court and any conclusion or result of this petition will be only with reference to the claim of Elumalai.2. The claim petition filed by the petitioner here was C.P. No. 189 of 1966 on the file of the Labour Court, Madras. The claim in that petition was for the payment of retrenchment compensation of Rs. 421.00, one month's n...
A. Velayutha Raja, Raja Engineering Co., Madurai Vs. Board of Revenue ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad137; (1971)2MLJ546; [1970]26STC176(Mad)
1. In this Tax Case, the appellant seeks for the cancellation of the order of the Board of Revenue passed under Section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 hereinafter referred to as the Act, on December 28, 1965, and in consequence the cancellation of the order of demand of tax made by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer. Madurai-1 on January 28, 1966.2. The appellant is a dealer in oil engines and electrical goods in Madurai. For the assessment year 1958-59 (ending with March 31, 1959), the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai-1 assessed the dealer under Section 3(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. This order was dated November 30, 1959. Later, the assessing authority revised the said assessment in the purported exercise of its powers under Section 16(1) of the Act and re-determined the turnover assessable under Section, 3(1) of the Act at 2 per cent on Rs. 98,872/- and the turnover assessable under Section 3(2) of the said act to an additional rate of 2 per cent on...
Spirit Warehouse Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1969
Reported in: [1970]26STC228(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Messrs Spirit Warehouse, the petitioners, are dealers in varnish etc., at 49, Sydenhams Road, Madras. Before the assessing authority they claimed a concession over a turnover of Rs. 1,52,999.95, which represented their second sales of varnish (according to them) and which were already subject to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act in the hands of Messrs E.I.D. Parry Limited. The assessing authority was of the view that under Section 10 of the Act the burden of proof was on the assessee to establish that the sales of varnish covered by the turnover referred to above were in fact second sales. According to the assessing authority, the petitioners ought to have produced the purchase invoices noting the full value of varnish as such and also establish that such sales by Messrs E.I.D. Parry Limited suffered the full tax of 6 per cent, as provided in item 46 of the First Schedule of the Act as it then stood. In this view he negatived the concession asked for. The...
Spirit Warehouse Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Joint Com ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1969
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ7
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Messrs. Spirit Warehouse, the petitioners, are dealers in varnish, etc. at 49, Sydenhams Road, Madras. Before the assessing authority they claimed a concession over a turnover of Rs. 1,52,999.95, which represented their second sales of varnish, (according to them) and which were already subject to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act in the hands of Messrs. E.I.D. Parry Limited. The assessing authority was of the view that under Section 10 of the Act the burden of proof was on the assessee to establish that the sales of varnish covered by the turnover referred to above were in fact second sales. According to the assessing authority, the petitioners ought to have produced the purchase invoices noting the full value of varnish as such and also establish that such sales by Messrs. E.I.D. Parry Limited suffered the full tax of 6 per cent as provided in item 46 of the First Schedule of the Act as it then stood. In this view he negatived the concession asked fo...
Rajammal Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Represented by General Manager, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ497
S. Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Claims Commissioner, Southern Railway, Madurai, dismissing the application of the appellant for compensation for the death of her husband under Section 82-A of the Indian Railways Act. Periyasamy, the deceased, was earning his living as a porter at Danushkodi. He went to Ramashwaram Road to purchase provisions and firewood, and with a view to return to Danushkodi, he boarded the train No. 653 Pamban-Danushkodi Passenger--in the night of 22/23rd December, 1964 and was washed away along with the train by tidal waves near Danushkodi. Rajammal, the appellant, who is the widow of Periyaswamy, filed an application claiming compensation on the basis that her husband was earning Rs. 5 or 6 per day as a porter. But the Claims Commissioner dismissed the petition on the ground that Periyaswamy was not travelling in the ill-fated train as a bona fide passenger.2. The word 'passenger' has not been defined in the Act. According to the Oxf...
N. Bashyam and anr. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Distric ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ510
P.S. Kailasam, J. 1. This petition, is filed by two persons who took on lease an extent of 12.68 acres, for revising the order of the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli at Pudukottai holding that there was an association of persons and that both the petitioners together are entitled to cultivate only 5 standard acres. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Tiruchirapalli in his proceedings, dated 27th December, 1965 held that both the cultivating tenants could hold only 5 standard acres and that the excess over 5 acres was the surplus available with them. He issued a notice in Form 32 for proceeding with the surplus extent available. The tenants took the matter on appeal to the Land Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirapalli, and the Land Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision by the cultivating tenants.2. Section 60 of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act 1961 defi...
Murugesan and ors. Vs. Kothandam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1969
Reported in: 1970CriLJ1183
ORDERKrishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. This petition has been filed by Accused 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 3792 of 1933 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Tindivanam, to quash the proceedings-before the said Magistrate against them on the ground that the second complaint on which the learned Magistrate had taken cognisance of the case, is not maintainable.2. The brief facts of the case are these : The respondent filed a private complaint against the three petitioners under Sections 355 and 341, I. P. C., in respect of an occurrence which took place in Tindivanam at about 8-30 p.m. on 3-10-1968. The complaint was filed on 4-10-1968. The learned Sub-Magistrate on the same day noted in the petition of the complainant itself that it disclosed the commission of the offence under Sections 341 and 355, I. P. C., which were cognisable. He, therefore, forwarded the complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tindivanam for investigation under Section 156 (3), Criminal P. C., and report under Section 173 (2), Cr...
Estate of Late G. Ramaswamy Naidu Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1969
Reported in: AIR1971Mad57; [1970]76ITR559(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. This reference arises under the Estate Duty Act, 1953. At this instance of the accountable person, under Section 64(1) of the said Act, the following question has been set before us for our decision.'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the value of the jewellery that passed on the death of the deceased was Rs. 1,00,000/?'2. The estate in question belonged to one G. Ramaswami Naidu, who died as a bachelor on October 26, 1959. The accountable person is his sister, Guruswami Naidu, the father of Ramaswami Naidu, admittedly was possessed of jewels worth about a lakh of rupees. He made a declaration to that effect before the Department on March 31, 1950. The deceased, in his Wealth Tax proceedings, during the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57, owned the jewels of such value and disclosed the same in his Wealth Tax returns. During the assessment year 1957-58, however, Ramaswami Naidu retracted and decl...