Chennai Court February 1971 Judgments
M. Vairakannu and ors. Vs. the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC137(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. In all these cases a common point is involved. As the necessary facts could be drawn if an affidavit in one of the writ petitions is perused, I intend dealing with the facts in Writ Petition No. 673 of 1967 as the facts in the other writ petitionsvare similar.2. The petitioner was engaged as a contractor to carry out certain road works for the benefit of the Highways Department. The contract in question itself owns the petitioner as a contractor and the contract is for the purpose of making certain repairs to certain roads vested in the Highways Department and the contractor is enjoined to undertake such works as set out in the contract and the schedule annexed thereto and ultimately to receive the consideration either in a lump sum or by final measurement at unit prices. One of the significant features of the contract is that the petitioner as contractor should win metal from a quarry belonging to the State and he has to carry or convey the same metal so wo...
Tag this Judgment!Stoneware Pipes (Madras) Ltd. Vs. the Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad442; [1971]41CompCas580(Mad)
1. These petitions have been grouped and heard together as the facts in each are of a common pattern raising the identical question as to the validity of demands made on the petitioners by the Chief Enforcement Officer. Emergency Risks Insurance Scheme. Madras, to make payments of premium towards alleged under insurance against war risks in respect of factories and goods pertaining to certain quarters between January and December 1963 and September 1965 to March 1966. It will, therefore, suffice to notice the facts in one of them. In W. P. 1071 of 1970 the petitioner is a private limited company which during the relevant period, carried on the business of a spinning mill at Dindigul. As required by the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962 it had taken out polices of insurance against Emergency Risks issued in accordance with the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Scheme, which covered the quarters during the periods mentioned above. It appears that Dindigul Enforcement Of...
Tag this Judgment!Chinna Annamalai Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: AIR1971Mad448; 1971CriLJ1569; (1971)IIMLJ158
1. This petition has been filed to quash the Government notification dated 12-2-1971 forfeiting the posters printed and published by the petitioner.2. The petitioner is a Hindu. He belongs to the Asthika Sangam, Madras. The circumstances under which the petitioner placed orders to print the posters leading to the order of Government forfeiting the posters are stated to be as follows:3. The petitioner learnt from the Press that at the instigation of Thiru E. V. Ramaswami Naicker, the Leader of Dravida Kazhagam, several tableaus depicting the picture of Gods Rama and Muruga were being beaten by a chappal in a procession held at Salem on 23rd and 24th January 1971. The petitioner being a Hindu and being a member of Asthika Samagam was very much wounded by the activities carried on by the party belonging to Thiru E. V. Ramaswami Naicker. The Government of Tamil Nadu did not take any action against the person who took part in the said procession in spite of opposition by the public through ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Krishnaswamy Gounder Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC478(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. All these petitions are for the issue of rules of prohibition restraining the respondent from proceeding with the threatened assessment as per the notice issued by him on 22nd January, 1968, for the financial years 1962-63 to 1967-68. The facts are that in the course of an inspection or raid effected by the commercial taxes department on 2nd December, 1967, of the premises under the control of the petitioner certains records, materials and slips were seized by the party. The petitioner was asked to appear in connection with such materials seized by the department on 8th December, 1967. But the petitioner did not present himself for an enquiry before the concerned assessing authority but preferred to file a writ petition in this Court, W.P. No. 3765 of 1967, stating that the department is bound to return the records seized from him as he was not a dealer under the Act and as he was an agriculturist doing agricultural operations. This writ petition has been dis...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Krishnan Namboodiri Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC661(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner claims that he appointed one A. Balakrishnan as the manager of his hotel business, Sri Krishna Vilas Hotel, at No. 511, T. H. Road, Washermenpet, Madras. For the assessment year 1965-66 and in connection with the hoteliering business, he submitted a return in Form 1-A showing a taxable turnover of Rs. 35,009.95, but on 21st June, 1966, the officers of the Commercial Tax Department inspected the business premises which the petitioner characterises as a raid, and seized and removed the account books, note-books, etc. which were in the premises. On the basis of such matter which the department secured in the course of the inspection or raid, a proposal was made on 9th September, 1966, to reject the accounts submitted by the petitioner as incorrect and to assess him at Rs. 2,09,716.08 on the basis of the sales entered in the pocket-book discovered during the raid and also to levy a penalty. This notice was issued to the petitioner and he was asked...
Tag this Judgment!Jagadeesa thevar and ors. Vs. Rajabakiya thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1350
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. These 11 petitioners seek to revise the order of the Sub Magistrate, Pattukottai, who has conducted an enquiry Under Section 202, Cr.PC by the examination of P. Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 1, Rajabakiya Thevar is the complainant. His complaint was taken on file for offences Under Sections 4 and 5 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (Act No. 19 of 1929) by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mannargudi Under Section 10 of the said Act. On receipt of a complaint by P.W. 1, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the Sub Magistrate, Pattukottai to make an enquiry Under Section 202, Criminal P.C. The said Magistrate completed the enquiry Under Section 202 and ultimately found that there is sufficient evidence in the case and that the accused shall stand their trial in the court of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mannargudi. It is against this order that this revision petition is directed.2. Mr. R. G. Rajan, the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Sub Divisi...
Tag this Judgment!Burmah-shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. and Shanka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1971
Reported in: [1974]44CompCas488(Mad)
ORDERPalaniswamy, J.1. These two applications raise a common question of law. The question is whether, under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, leave to proceed with a proceeding against a company in liquidation can be granted, even though the proceeding was instituted after the passing of the winding-up order. Messrs. Associated Industrial and Engineering Corporation Ltd. has been in C.P. No. 2 of 1970 ordered on April 3, 1970, to be wound up. Messrs. Shankar Service Station, a partnership concern doing business at Ranipet, Bellary District, Mysore State, claiming to have supplied petrol, oil, etc., to that company to the value of Rs. 9,946, instituted O.S. No. 86 of 1970 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff, Hospet, on April 18, 1970, without obtaining leave of this court to institute that suit. On coming to know of the order of winding-up, the plaintiff-firm has taken out Application No. 238 of 1970, praying for leave to continue the said suit or in the alternative to ...
Tag this Judgment!Jalal Mohammed Ibrahim (Died) and ors. Vs. Kakka Mohammed Ghouse Sahib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad86
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by him for a declaration that the decree dated 25-3-1952 in C.S. No. 173 of 1950 on the file of this court was void as far as the plaintiff was concerned on the ground that the said decree had been obtained by fraud and suppression of the unregistered partnership agreement between the defendants and for restraining the first defendants and for restraining the first defendant from executing the said decree. or in the alternative for declaring the transfers of the funds of the second defendant made by the first defendant in his accounts as void and directing the first defendant to adjust the decree amount from the moneys standing to the credit of the second defendant and his wife with the firm of Kaka Mohammed Ghouse and company. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for enforcement of the indemnity clause in the agreement executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for costs.2. The case of the plaintiff as set ou...
Tag this Judgment!R.G. Bandari and Company Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1971
Reported in: (1971)IIMLJ362; [1971]28STC465(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner who is the sole proprietor of a business concern M/s. R. G. Bandariand Company carrying on business at No. 11/2, Narayana Mudali Street, Madras-1, seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent dated 28th February, 1965, which by itself is an order of assessment, no doubt, based on the best judgment method. The facts are as follows :The petitioner besides having a business premises at No. 11/2, Narayana Mudali Street, Madras-1, is said to have been residing at No. 7, Kalappa Achari Street, Madras (Park Town) till 30th June, 1964. Thereafter, he left Madras and he had no residence of his own excepting his business premises. On the 2nd July, 1965, the special police establishment searched both the business premises and the residential premises at No. 7, Kalappa Achari Street, Madras, apparently under the impression that the petitioner continued in the said premises even after 30th June, 1964. It is common ground ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rangarajan Vs. R. Ponnusamy Gramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1349
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The petitioner Rangarajan is the complainant. He filed an application on 5-6-1970 praying for restoration of the property Under Section 522, Criminal P.C., in the wake of the judgment delivered in his favour on 14-5-1970 by the learned III Presidency Magistrate.2. His evidence is that he filed an eviction petition and it was decreed. In execution, possession was physically delivered to the complainant (P.W. 3) after physically evicting the accused respondent (Ponnusami Gramani) by the court bailiff, P.W. 1. Ex. P.I is the delivery warrant. 3 days later on 5-12- 1967 the accused put up a hut on the edge of the land. P.W. 2 gave him the information. On 7-12-1967 the complainant went there with his father. The accused threatened to beat him. Therefore, P.W. 3 complained to the police. It is the case of the accused that he was not evicted at all and that he has always been in possession for the last 20 years. His case was rejected by the learned trial Magistrate a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »