Chennai Court April 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.
Textool Co. Ltd. Vs. the Ganapathi Town Panchayat
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1969
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ42
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. The petitioner company has a factory for the manufacture of textile machinery within the limits of Ganapathy Town Panchayat in Coimbatore District. That factory contains 710 machines and the total horse power of the said machines is 3951. All the machines are worked with electric power only. Under Section 111 of the Panchayats Act a licence should be taken out for the purpose of running this machinery and licence fee is payable as specified against each item in the schedule to a notification published by the Panchayat Board. Item 21(14) in the Schedule under the heading 'Electric Power' is as follows : 'Using Machinery exceeding 500 H.P. - Rs. 350 for 500 H.P. and 25 nP. for every additional H.P. subject to a maximum of Rs. 450'. Item 23(12) in the same schedule under the heading 'Power other than Electricity' states as follows:Using any machinery or manufacturing plant for industrial purpose either by electric power or steam power such as gin, docorticator, ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Central) Vs. T. Meenakshi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1969
Reported in: [1970]75ITR122(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This is a reference' under the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee, a female, transferred on November 21, 1956, 7,000 ordinary shares in a certain company to her minor son, which were of the total face value of Rs. 1,05,000. This amount was not included in her wealth-tax return for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. Her contention that she was not caught by Section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act was overruled by the department, but accepted by the Tribunal. At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the reference comes before us of the question :' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of shares transferred by the assessee to her minor son is not caught by Section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, and is not therefore liable to be included in her wealth-tax assessments for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62?'2. Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act charges for every financial year a tax inre...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Subban Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ402
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of Subban Chettiar for an offence under Sections 7 (1) and 16 (1) read with Section 2 (1) (a) and (b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 as amended by Act (XLIX of 1964). The accused is a small vendor owning a retail ghee shop at 19/2, Meenakshi Nilayam in Tirupattur. On 30th June, 1966 at about 9-15 a.m. he had in his possession a tin containing ghee kept exposed for sale in his retail shop and he sold on demand to P.W. 1 500 grams of ghee from the tin in the presence of witnesses. for Rs. 5 and on analysis it is found that the sample contained 30 per cent. of fat not derived from milk or cream as calculated from Reichert value, the sample having contained Reichert value of 16.6 only as against the prescribed minimum of 24.2. P.W. 1 states in his evidence that Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-3 were attested by P.W. 2 Abdul Sathar. Exhibit P-1 is the notice. Exhibit P-2 is the receipt for payment of Rs. 5. Exhibit P-3 is...
R. Kandaswami and ors. Vs. R. Thirugnanasambandam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ455
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J.1. These two revision petitions involve a point of some interest, but upon which, there are clear authorities of this Court available deciding the issue. Very briefly stated, the facts are that, in both these revision petitions, the concerned party was attempting to obtain damages for what was essentially a malicious prosecution, viz., a malicious attempt to obtain the adjudication of the concerned plaintiff as an insolvent, which, for the time being at least, succeeded. In each of these cases, the averment were that the concerned petitioning-creditor was not acting bona fide but was acting with malice and without due cause for the alleged ground relied on as an act of insolvency, in order to get the concerned debtor adjudicated, thereby inflicting considerable injury and humiliation upon him. In each of these cases, which in substance was an action for damages for the injury inflicted by malice on a person, of course, in the wide sense, and not merely in t...
S.A.A. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Molaiyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad396; (1970)2MLJ562
ORDERGanesan, J.1. Annamalai Chettiar, the plaintiff in Small Cause Suits Nos. 274, 275 and 276 of 1967 is the revision petitioner and he is aggrieved that the District Munslf of Pudukottai had dismissed all the three suits filed by him for recovery of rent from each of the respondent-defendants.2. It is not disputed that the respondents were tenants under the Petitioner and were giving melwaram to him at the rate of 40:60 and one bundle of straw out of every five bundles till the year 1966 and that they have ceased paying the rent on the ground that the village Melur wherein the suit lands are situated and which is a minor inam had been abolished by Madras Act 30 of 1963 and the consequent notification made on 22-1-1966, that, thereafter, the rights and obligations of the petitioner-plaintiff as inamdar had been completely extinguished and that he is not therefore, entitled thereafter to the melwaram from the respondents.3. The learned District Munsif had upheld the contention of the ...
Spencer and Co. Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1969
Reported in: [1969]24STC161(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. W. Ps Nos. 2787 to 2790 of 1966.-The petitioners Messrs Spencer and Company, who are dealers in oilman goods, are wholesalers in liquors, steel almirahs, air-conditioners, etc. For the assessment years 1961-62 to 1964-65 the petitioners' total taxable turnover was determined and they were assessed. As against the said original assessment orders, appeals have been preferred by the petitioners and those appeals being unsuccessful, they preferred appeals to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, and the said appeals are pending before the Tribunal. It was subsequently discovered that in reckoning the taxable turnover for the aforesaid assessment years, the turnover relating to the sales of foreign liquor was not properly determined and to that extent there was an escapement of assessment. In those circumstances, the assessing officer, the respondent herein, issued the impugned notices proposing to redetermine the taxable turnover of the petitioners for the assessm...
Marimuthammal Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secretary, Ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1969
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ227
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of survey No. 161/2 of an extent of 6-20 acres in Manathal Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. A notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to this land was published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 22nd June, 1966 and after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A by the same notification a declaration under Section 6 was also published in Fort St. George Gazette on the same day. This writ petition is filed to quash those proceedings.2. In reply it is stated that possession of the land has been taken on 3rd February, 1967, though the order of stay in this case was passed only on 8th February, 1967. The main attack of the petitioner in this case is with regard to the use of the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. I consider that there is considerable justification for this attack. From page one of the note file of the Collecto...
R. Kanakasabai and ors. Vs. the Controller of Estate Duty, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad197; [1969]74ITR429(Mad)
Veeraswami, J. 1. This is a reference under the Estate Ditty Act at the instance of the accountable persons. One Rathna-sabhapathi Pillai died on February, 5, 1959. The subject-matter of the reference is the total value of six gifts of immovable property made by tile deceased person in favour of his sons, grandsons, daughter and wife namely, Rs. 7,33,656. The Revenue considered that the reservation in each of the gifts towards maintenance attracted Section 12, or, in the alternative, Section 10: The question to consider is: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the properties settled by the deceased by the six deeds of settlement valued at Rs. 7,38,656 or any part thereof was not liable for inclusion in the estate of the deceased as property deemed to pass on his death?' 2. We are of the view that there is no room whatever for the application of Section 12. The gift deeds were all executed more than two years prior to the death of the deceased, The first four dee...
K.S. Santhalingam Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1969
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ85
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant and he is related to the defendants as shown below: Srinivasa Pandaram (died in 1931) | ____________________________________________ | | Kothandapani Chockalinga (died in 1944). Nainar. Amirthammal (died after suit). (Defendant 3). | _____________________________ | | Meenakshi (1st Meenakshi (2nd wife died in wife) Defen 1922). dant 2. | _____________________________ | | | Santhalingam Umayalammal Sankaralingam (Plaintiff) (Defendant 4) (died unmar- ried in 1952).2. Chockalinga father of the plaintiff, died after the institution of the suit but before he filed his written statement. Kothandapani and Chockalinga inherited from their father, Srinivasa, two items of lands described in Schedule I to the plaint. Item 2 measuring 1 acre 27 cents is a punja which was sold away by Kothandapani under Exhibit A-12 on 11th August, 1941 ; Item No. 1 is a wet land measuring 40 cents. In the year 1905, Kothandapani entered service in the South...
Doraipandi Konar Vs. P. Sundara Pathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1969
Reported in: AIR1970Mad291
Ganesan, J. 1. The landlord Is the revision petitioner herein and he is aggrieved that the Subordinate Judge of Madurai had by his judgment in A. S. 221 of 1967 reversed the judgment of the District Munsif of Melur in O. S. 222 of 1966 and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 835-30 proved to have been spent by the respondent tenant.2. The respondent Is running a tea shop in the eastern and northern portion of a building at a monthly rent of Rs. 40, The flooring of the respondent's portion was made of mud and the walls also similarly were made of mud, and the premises have a common thatched roof with the other two portions of the building. As the petitioner landlord refused to renovate the roof which was leaking in the rains and to repair the mud floor and to put walls in the place of the mud walls which had fallen in spite of his requests and a notice, the respondent renewed the entire thatched roof which was common to his premises as well as the other portions of the building, demolishe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »