Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Vella Pinna thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ383
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The petitioner is convicted for offences under Sections 4 (1) (a), 4 (1) (b) and 4 (1) (g) of the the Madras Prohibition Act. No seperate sentences-were passed for the offences under Sections 4 (1) (a) and 4 (1) (g) of the said Act.2. On the occurrence night, at about 5 a.m. P.W. 1 found four people distilling arrack in a disused well. Out of the four persons, two ran away from the scene. The petitioner and one Sakkarai were arrested and were brought to the police station on 9th March, 1969, at about 5 a.m., or a little later. The wash and the distilled arrack and other articles of contraband were seized and brought to the station and all these have been marked before the trial Court.3. The only evidence is that of P.W. 1 unsupported by any other testimony. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 has got to be scrutinised with great care and caution.4. A legal ground has been raised for quashing the conviction under Section 4(1) (a). The learned Counsel for the peti...
T.T. Krishnamachari Vs. Income-tax Officer, Collection Branch and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR651(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. These two writ petitions are absolutely misconceived. Mr. C. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, states before us that the relevant facts which arise in these petitions may be summarised thus : ' It is the intention of the petitioner to negotiate for the best price for his properties and in such circumstances if the petitioner has paid the taxes due he need not fill up Form No. 34A from items 10 to 17 prescribed under the Income-tax Act of 1961, and that he is entitled to issuance of the certificate under Section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a matter of course.' It is fundamental that law should be applied only to the given existing state of affairs and facts. Courts are not inclined and generally should not engage itself with hypothetical problems and apply the law thereto. In our view, the admitted fact in this case is there is no concluded sale of property as is popularly understood between thepetitioner and the buyer, but the petitioner is o...
A. Kannu Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1970
Reported in: [1971]27STC25(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 8. This case has been posted for being spoken to at the instance of the Assistant Government Pleader (Tax). He referred us to a decision in Vaidyanatha Iyer v. State of Madras1. There, the assessee who grew sugar-cane in his fields sold the sugar-cane as such in previous years. But, in the relevant year the assessee converted the sugar-cane into jaggery by a process of manufacture and sold the jaggery. In those circumstances, the revenue as well as the Appellate Tribunal found, taking into account the organisation behind the sales, including the manufacture, that the assessee satisfied the requirements of the definition of 'dealer' in Section 2(b) of Act 9 of 1939, which is similar to Section 2(g) of the present Act. But it should be noted that the learned Judges in Vaidyanatha Iyer v. State of Madras [1954] 5 S.T.C. 94 were persuaded to accept the argument of the revenue that the assessee should be deemed to be a 'dealer', because they found that the assessee ...
A. Kannu Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Deputy Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ162
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner claiming himself to be an agriculturist owning lands in Matrapalli village, Tirupathur Taluk, North Arcot District, has filed this writ petition seeking for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from taking further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated 22nd March, 1969, issued by him to the petitioner proposing to levy sales tax on sale of jaggery, admittedly sold by him. The case of the petitioner is that he is an agriculturist and he has raised sugarcane on his lands, and as there were no facilities for transport and as there was no market for sugarcane as such, he had to convert the sugarcane into jaggery and thereafter realise his agricultural income by sale thereof. The petitioner admits that during the years 1967-68 and 1968-69, he effected sales of jaggery to the tune of Rs. 34,381.28. His case, however, is that as jaggery has beeni notified as an agricultural produce under' Section 2 of the Madras Agricultural Produce Ma...
K.A. Bari Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1970
Reported in: [1970]26STC290(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. As the above cases raise a common question of law they have been heard together. In all these cases the validity of Regulation 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1959, is challenged. The question for our decision in all these cases is whether the said regulation is ultra vires of Section 36(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. For the purpose of appreciating the said legal contention put forward by the petitioners, it is necessary to set out the facts in the first case, that is, T.C. No. 379 of 1969. The petitioner in that case was assessed under the Act for the year 1965-66 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 48,581.49 as against the reported turnover of Rs. 36,734 by an order of assessment dated 4th November, 1966. The said assessment order was appealed against and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 18th January, 1967, confirmed the assessment order. The petitioner took the ...
Thiru K.A. Bari, Proprietor, Hotel Bharani and anr. Vs. the State of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1970
Reported in: (1971)1MLJ11
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. As the above cases raise a common question of law they have been heard together. In all these cases, the validity of Regulation 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1959 is challenged. The question for our decision in all these cases is whether the said Regulation is ultra vires of Section 36(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. For the purpose of appreciating the said legal contention put forward the petitioners, it is necessary to set out the facts in the first case, that is T.C. No. 379 of 1969. The petitioner in that case was. assessed under the Act for the year 1965-66 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 48,581-49 as against the reported turnover of Rs. 36,734 by an order of assessment dated 4th November, 1966. The said assessment order was appealed against and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 18th January, 1967 confirmed the assessment order. The petitioner took ...
The State of Madras Vs. Mohamed Mustafa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad213
1. In this appeal which is against the judgment and decree of the learned Fourth Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court, Madras, the question relates to the sufficiency of compensation granted to the respondent as and towards the market value of the lands acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894). By a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, dated March 7, 1962, an extent of 7 Grounds 75 sq. ft. in S. No. 34/3 in the village of Puliyur near Kodambakkam, was acquired for the construction of a sewage pumping station. The Land Acquisition Officer, after due notice to parties, granted a compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,587/- per ground. He also awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per tree and there were 39 such trees. In addition thereto, a claim was made before the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the unacquired portion of land has been injuriously affected by reason of the acquisition of the acquired land which is a roadside land...
The M.L.J. Press Private Ltd. Vs. the Additional Commissioner for Work ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1970
Reported in: (1970)1MLJ467
ORDERM.M. Ismail, J. 1. The second respondent herein was an employee of the petitioner and he was superannuated with effect from 31st May, 1968. Between the petitioner and its workmen an agreement under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 98 of the Industrial Disputes Rules was effected on 3rd August, 1965. The preamble to this agreement states that the workers of the petitioner and the management had entered into an agreement regarding their earlier disputes under a Memorandum of Settlement, dated 23rd April, 1962, which was in force till the end of 1965, but even during the currency of the agreement the workers through the Union had been making demands for increased dearness allowance, revision of grades for certain workmen, or ad hoc payments and though the said demand was contrary to the terms of the agreement and the workers were not legally justified or entitled to press any such claim, the management had been giving certain concessions now and then to maintain...
M. Mariappa Gounder Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR785(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioner herein seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated June 8, 1966, passed by the Income-tax Officer,Companies Circle, Tiruchirapalli-1, holding the petitioner personally liable to pay the tax of Rs. 10,566.45 due by the company, Hindu Bank Karur Ltd., of which the petitioner is a liquidator. The said company went into voluntary liquidation in the year 1962 and the petitioner was appointed on October 28, 1963, as liquidator in the said voluntary winding up. On November 17, 1963, the petitioner, in his capacity as liquidator of the company, submitted to the Income-tax Officer a return enclosing the balance-sheet and profit and loss account for the assessment year 1963-64 specifically stating therein that the bank had transferred its assets and liabilities to the Syndicate Bank, Udipi, as on August 26, 1962. The said letter made it clear that he is addressing the Income-tax Officer in his capacity as liquidator. On December 13, 1963, also he addressed...
First Gift-tax Officer Vs. A.A. Annamalai Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1970
Reported in: [1970]77ITR608(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J. 1. This is a writ petition in which the department is seeking for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which by its order dated January 17, 1966, granted a stay of the collection of the gift-tax payable by the first respondent pursuant to the orders of the assessing authority, pending disposal of the appeal. The main point raised before us is that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant such stay pending disposal of the appeal, as no such power is expressly envisaged in Section 23(5) of the Gift-tax Act of 1958. The contention of the respondent, however, is that such power is implied.2. We heard the counsel. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope and content of such a power of the appellate authority under Section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961. The Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer v. M. K. Mohammed Kunhi was of the view that the Section should be interpreted liberally and that i...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »