Chennai Court February 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.
A.R. Manickyam Vs. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC409(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a partner of Sri Murugan Transports and his business is to ply lorries for purposes of carrying goods from one' place to another. On 17th March, 1966, lorry No. APC 1791, apparently belonging to the petitioner, was proceeding towards Pallipet in Chittoor District. The lorry was stopped at about 1-30 A.M. on 18th March, 1966, by the officers of the Commercial Tax Department at the check-post at Avadi prescribed for the purpose. There were other officers stationed at the check-post. It is not in dispute that the person in charge of the goods vehicle did not carry with him the necessary documents, as prescribed under Section 44 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that he is not disputing before us this finding of fact of the Board of Revenue, whose order is impugned in this writ petition. As, according to the officials at the check-post, there has been a vi...
Kannan Motor Transports (P.) Ltd., Now Represented by Kannan Motor Tra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ73
G. Ramanujam, J.1. These petitions have been filed under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution of India seeking leave to appeal to Supreme Court against the order in Writ Appeal Nos. 437 to 439 of 1969 on the file of this Court dismissing the appeals in limine.2. The above appeals were filed against the common judgment of Natesan, J., in W.P. Nos. 1 and 3619 of 1967 and 408 of 1968 which arose out of proceedings for the grant of a stage carriage permit in respect of route Chidambaram to Thirukoilur. There were 42 applications before the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the said route. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1 of 1967 was the grantee before the Regional Transport Authority. But the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, however, set aside the said grant made by the Regional Transport Authority and preferred Kannan Motor Transports, the first respondent in W.P. No. 1 of 1967 for the grant of permit. Writ petition 1 of 1967 ha...
The Progressive Printers Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC438(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. We. are of the view that in a tax revision case, this court is very hesitant to interfere with the discretion exercised by a statutory tribunal which refused to condone the delay in the presentation of an appeal before it. The facts are not disputed. The main appeal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was to be filed on 8th January, 1967. But, in fact, it was filed on 10th January 1967. But the admitted tax was not paid. Therefore, the relevant papers were returned to the appellant for rectification of the defects. In spite of the knowledge that the admitted tax was not paid in time, the appellant delayed the matter and such tax was paid only on 13th February, 1967. The only explanation for this is that his office staff were inefficient. After the appeal papers were returned, they were re-submitted nearly six months later and here again, the explanation is that the papers were displaced (probably misplaced) in the office of the appellant. In ...
Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax) Vs. R.A. Akbar Alikhan and Abdul Ruhee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1970
Reported in: (1971)IIMLJ72; [1971]27STC167(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This tax case is directed against the, order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, dated 30th September, 1969. The assessment year is 1966-67 and the product in discussion and which is the subject-matter in this tax case is leco, admittedly manufactured by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The respondent is a dealer in leco and he was assessed finally for the year 1966-67 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,20,807.82. Certain exemptions were also granted to him. Ultimately, the taxable turnover comprised inter alia the following sales: 'Sales of leco Rs. 81,578.98'. A tax at the rate of 2 per cent. single point was imposed thereon by the taxing authorities and that was sustained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the ground that leco comes under 'coke in all its forms' and, therefore, rightly assessable at 2 per cent. single point. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner was of the view that in view of the specific provision in the Pondicherry General S...
Manickam Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad221
1. The facts giving rise to these two appeals are these: On 25-11-1955, the State of Madras (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) represented by the Director of Medical Services, invited tenders for the supply of articles of diet etc. to the City Hospitals for a period of one year commencing from 1st of April 1956 and ending with the 31st March 1957. This notice had as its annexure, a schedule which showed the articles required and the approximate quantity estimated and needed for each hospital in the city. On an acceptance of the tender, the tenderer had to execute a stamped agreement Manickam Chetty, the respondent in O.S.A. 116 of 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) offered to supply, besides other items, (1) 13,33,500 lbs. of boiled hand-pounded rice at Re. 0-3-5 per lb; (2) 63960 tons of gingili oil at Re. 0-12-91/2 per lb. and (3) 1,1151 tons of casuarina firewood at Rs. 57-14-0 per lb. He had also sent along with this tender, an amount of Rs. 9100 as earnest mon...
The Workmen of the Jawahar Mills, Salem represented by the Secretary, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1970
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ433
ORDERA. Alagiriswami, J.1. The petitioners are the workmen of the Jawahar Mills, Salem. 'One Babu Chettiar, who was working as a spinning master, had his services terminated by the management from 1st January, 1966. At the instance of the petitioners the dispute regarding the termination of his services was referred to the Labour Court, Coimbatore for adjudication, and the Labour Court has held that there is no industrial dispute in this case, as the Union is not entitled to agitate the question regarding the termination of services of Babu Chettiar. I think the decision of the Labour Court is correct. One need hardly take the trouble of examining the provision explaining the scope of the Industrial Disputes Act. It would be enough to refer to the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's judgment in Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate : (1958)ILLJ500SC , because in the present case Babu Chettiar was admittedly not a workman as defined in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial...
Rangammal Vs. Marudamuthu Muthuraja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ620
G. Ramanujam, J.1. This second appeal involves an interesting question of law. It arises out of a suit to set aside a summary order directing the defendant to deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. The suit property originally belonged to one Marimuthu and after his death his son Vridhachala inherited the same. Vridhachala died on 11th January, 1949 leaving behind him his widow, Ramayee to enjoy the property as limited owner. On 13th June, 1951 the said Ramayee executed a settlement deed under Exhibit A-6 in favour of her sister's son Marimuthu, husband of the defendant bequeathing the suit property to him. Ramayee died on 12th January, 1959. Thereafter the settlee under Exhibit A-6 also died in April, 1960. The defendant who is the sister's son filed a suit O.S. No. 13 of 1961 claiming the suit property on the basis of the settlement deed, Exhibit A-6 against the plaintiff's wife and got a decree for possession on 12th March, 1962. The plaintiff had purchased the ...
In Re: Pandian and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ26
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The two appellants appeal against their conviction for offences under Section 10 (a) read with Rule 7 (d) of G.O.Ms. No. 3031, Home, dated 1st November, 1958, framed under Section 16 (1) of the Madras Prohibition Act, for alleged possession, without requisite medical prescription, of 1150 bottles of some Ayurvedic preparations containing an admixture of chloral hydrate, an intoxicating drug. Accused 1 is owner of the shop. Accused 2 is his servant.2. The shop of Accused 1, situated at No. 26, Mambalam High Road in T. Nagar, was searched between 7 : 30 p.m. and 8 p.m., on 10th February, 1968 in the presence of P. W. 2 and one Veerappan (not examined). Both Accused 1 and 2 were present. In the course of such search, P.W. 1 found 950 bottles (M.O. 1 series), each bearing a label marked ' Usrabala Kashayam--Product of Jothi Pharmacy, H. O. Five Falls Road, Courtallam.' Besides M.O. 1 series, there were also 200 bottles (M.O. 2 series), each bearing a label marked ' Ami...
Varadarajulu Naidu Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1970
Reported in: AIR1970Mad374; (1970)2MLJ67
1. One acre and twelve cents of land in T. S. No. 37-A/1B in Thokkavadi village, Villupuram Taluk, South Arcot District, was acquired compulsorily for the use as a weekly cattle market. This acquisition was at the instance of the District Board, as it then was, of the district. The District Board initially applied also for the acquisition of R. S. No. 37-B/2B of the same village for purposes of the weekly shandy. Later, on the suggestion of the Collector, the proposal for the acquisition of R. S. No. 37-B/2B was withdrawn, for it was felt that the said land was on the other side of the Railway line and it cannot be reached from R. S. No. 37-A/1B excepting through crossing the railway line which is objectionable. It was also found that R. S. No. 37-B/2B was not used as a market place, whereas the land acquired was so being used as a shandy for the sale of cattle. It was with this initial background that the above extent of land in R. S. No. 37-A/1B belonging to the appellant was acquire...
Nagappa Gounder Vs. Kasi Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ371
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The only point for consideration in this second appeal is whether the suit O.S. No. 608 of 1961 on the file of the District Munsif of Erode out of which this second appeal arises is not barred by res judicata as regards S. No. 292 and the third defendant by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 106 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Erode.2. The suit O.S. No. 106 of 1955 was filed by the first defendant in this suit for partition of his 1/3rd share in S.F. No. 292 against the third defendant who had by then purchased 2/3rd share in the said S.F. number from other sharers and who was in possession of the entirety of the survey field. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the dismissal was confirmed by the appellate Court and by this Court in S.A. No. 516 of 1957. In the said second appeal, this Court had held that though the third defendant contended that he had purchased the first defendant's i/3rd share orally, he has not established that conte...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »