Chennai Court January 1970 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.
Central Camera Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC112(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The assessee, Messrs Central Camera Company (Private) Limited, dealers in photographic materials at No. 35/4 Mount Road, Madras, was subjected to assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1960-61. The assessing officer was the Additional Commercial Tax Officer IV, South Madras. When the accounts of the assessee were called for and checked, it was discovered that in the totality, a sum of Rs. 4,66,092.17 was the assessable turnover. The assessee contended that as these transactions were in the nature of inter-State sales, he was entitled to the concessional rate of tax ; but he would not produce before the assessing officer the necessary 'C' or 'D' forms, as they are popularly characterised. A further opportunity to the dealer, though of course, for a very short time, was not of any avail. Finally, the assessing officer refused to give further time and assessed the turnover in question at the higher rate, ignoring the concessional rate, for...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Indian Crafts and Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1970
Reported in: [1970]25STC466(Mad)
Ramapkasada Rao, J.1. In this case the State is the petitioner. The assessee secures allotments year after year from the Director of Industries and Commerce for importing certain raw material for purposes of his business. It is common ground that the accounts of the assessee reflected the correct state of affairs and that on check of such accounts, it was found that he utilised in the course of his trade only the actual quantum of raw material granted by the Director of Industries and Commerce. But the case of the State now before us is that the assessee, year after year, was applying for a higher quota from the Director of Industries and Commerce and for this purpose he used to inflate his production in the expectancy that he would be granted a higher quota to import a higher quantum of raw material. It happened invariably that the Director of Industries and Commerce ultimately granted only less than one-fourth of the quantum applied for and this allotment was regularly and admittedly...
K. Manathunainatha Desikar Vs. Sundaralingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ156
M. Natesan, J.1. This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench as the substantial question that calls for examination is the correctness of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Munahmnainatha Desikar v. Gopala I.L.R.(1943) Mad. 858 : (1943) 1 M.L.J. 434 about the applicability of the rule in Juttendramohun Tagore v. Ganendromohun Tagore (1872) 9 Beng. L.R. 377 : L.R. (1872) IndAp 47 to the office of manager of a South Indian temple under a scheme of succession settled by the founder. The very scheme of succession and right to management of the properties of the temple now in question was the subject-matter of adjudication in Manathunainatha Desikar v. Gopala (1943) 1 M.L.J. 434 : I.L.R.(1943) Mad. 858 and this aspect has given rise to a question of res judicata for consideration.2. The suit, the decree wherein in favour of the plaintiff has given rise to this appeal by the first defendant, is for a declaration that the first defendant is not entitled to be a join...
Sri Ranganathar Mills Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC216(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. The assessee started business in groundnut and groundnut kernel in the assessment year 1962-63. For the first assessment year, he returned a turnover of Rs. 78,232.23. There were two surprise inspections made by the departmental officers on 14th September, 1962, and 27th November, 1962, which disclosed heavy suppressions to the tune of Rs. 27,235.00 and Rs. 15,578.75 on 14th September, 1962, and Rs. 19,950.00 on 27th November, 1962. Though the dealer produced his accounts, they were rejected by the revenue and ultimately in second appeal by the Tribunal as well, who maintained the best judgment assessment made by the assessing authority, as also the levy of penalty for such suppression. Mr. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterates his contentions urged before the Tribunal and says that the mere fact that suppression was discovered on two occasions of inspection cannot legitimately lead to the inference that a best judgment assessment could be m...
Sri Ranganathar Mills Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ268
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.Tax Case No. 402 of 19691. The assessee started business in groundnut and groundnut kernel in the assessment year 1962-63. For the first assessment year, he returned a turnover of Rs. 78,232.23. There were two surprise inspections made by the departmental officers on 14th September, 1962 and 27th November, 1962, which disclosed heavy suppressions to the tune of Rs. 27,235.00 and Rs. 15,578.75 on 14th September, 1962 and Rs. 19,950.00 on 27th November, 1962. Though the dealer produced his accounts, they were rejected by the Revenue and ultimately in second appeal by the Tribunal as well, who maintained the best judgment assessment made by the assessing authority as also the levy of penalty for such suppression. Mr. Padmanabhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, reiterates his contentions urged before the Tribunal and says that the mere fact that suppression was discovered on two occasions of inspection cannot legitimately lead to the inference that a best judgmen...
S.P. Shanmugham Chettiar, Managing Director, Jai Hind Talkies (Paramak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ245
P. Ramakrishnan, J.1. The Writ appellant, S. P. Shanmugham Chettiar, is the proprietor of Jai Hind Talkies and Ravi Theatres in Paramakudi. The first respondent, Somasundaram, wanted to put up a temporary cinema in S. No. 16, Kattuparamakudi, situated in the main bazaar street, Paramakudi Town. This site selected by him is two furlongs from Ravi Theatres and four furlongs from Jai Hind Talkies. Rule 14 (2) of the rules framed under the Madras Cinemas Regulation Act states that a touring cinema shall not be allowed within a distance of 1.606 kms. (1 mile) of the nearest permanent cinema located in the same local area or in the adjacent village, panchayat or town or in the city of Madras. 'Local area' for this purpose is defined as 'the area within the jurisdiction of a municipal council or panchayat board or revenue village.' Section 11 of the Madras Cinemas Regulation Act (Madras Act IX of 1955) gives power to the State Government, by order in writing to exempt, subject to such conditi...
Abdul Rashid Sahib Vs. the Assistant Engineer (Highways) Kallakurichi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mad387; (1970)2MLJ298
ORDER1. The validity of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 Is impeached In this petition, which prays for a direction forbidding the respondents, the Assistant Engineer (Highways). Kallaburichi, and the District Revenue Officer, South Arcot District at Cuddalore, from evicting the petitioner from a portion of his building in Kallakurichi town. The petitioner has two buildings, both abutting the Salem main road. The petitioner maintains that the building in Survey Number 305 with the site on which it stands, has been in the occupation of his family from the time of his grandfather, and for over 60 years, that his father made considerable Improvements to the house, and that he made it a storeyed building. In the groundfloor there are 4 shops.By notice dated August 22, 1968, the Assistant Engineer (Highways) purporting to act under Section 6 of the Act, called upon the petitioner to remove the tiled top with the brick walls within a week,, on the ground that this portion was an encroa...
Rajalakshmi Vs. Kothandapani Pillar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad149; 1971CriLJ383
ORDER1. This revision petition raises an interesting question of law. The petitioner herein is one Rajalakshmi who is an insane person. She is represented by her next friend, the natural father Murugesa Pillai, who filed a petition praying that the respondent (Kothandapani Pillai) may be directed to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 100 for her maintenance from the date of the application, namely, 27-10-1967. The main averments in her petition are that she was married 27 years ago to the respondent. They lived for ten years and they begot a son. There is no maintenance amount claimed for and on behalf of the son. About 17 years back he married a second wife. Subsequently the petitioner lost here mental capacity. She was given medical treatment in the house of her husband and also in the house of her parents. Her condition did not improve. The respondent did not take any interest in her and neglected the petitioner and finally brought her down to the house of her parents and left her there...
Rajalakshmi Vs. Kothandapani Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1970
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ494
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question of law. The petitioner herein is one Rajalakshmi who is an insane person. She is represented by her next friend, the natural father Murugesa Pillai, who filed a petition praying that the respondent (Kothandapani Pillai) may be directed to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 100 for her maintenance from the date of the application, namely 27th October, 1967. The main averments in her petition are that she was married 27 years ago to the respondent. They lived together for 10 years and they begot a son. There is no maintenance amount claimed for and on behalf of the son. About 17 years back he married a second wife. Subsequently the petitioner lost her mental capacity. She was given medical treatment in the house of her husband and also in the house of her parents. Her condition did not improve. The respondent did not take any interest in her and neglected the petitioner and finally brought her down to the house o...
Maragathamani Vs. Ebenezer Ponraj Samuel
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad27
Veeraswami, C.J.1. The wife at her instance, on ground of impotency of her husband, has been granted a decree for divorce subject to confirmation by this Court. They were married in May 1959 in the Church of South India at Kovaikulam in Nanguneri taluk. She averred that on the night of the marriage and on several subsequent occasions, there was attempt at sexual intercourse, but because of the impotency of her husband they could not have it. The husband filed a written statement denying impotency. It appears that he instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, which he did not pursue. He did not appear in court; nor in spite of requisition therefor would he submit himself to medical examination. The wife gave evidence to the effect that her husband was unable to have sexual intercourse with her and that this fact she had also mentioned to a co-teacher who gave evidence in court. The District Judge accepted the evidence of the wife and her co-teacher. He was also inclined to dr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »