Chennai Court March 1971 Judgments
Visalakshi Achi Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad174; (1971)2MLJ436
1. These appeals have been preferred by the defendant and the plaintiff in O. S. No. 43 of 1962, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Devkottai, against the decree and judgment therein in so far as they are against each of them. The suit was filed by the plaintiff Visalakshi Achi for recovery of Rupees 26,024-09 being the principal and interest due on the mortgage deed, Ex. A-1, dated 28-12-1965, executed by her husband, the deceased Parichiappa alias Kasi Chettiar, in her favour for Rs. 21,400. It is clear from the mortgage deed, as well as the averments in the plaint, that it was executed in discharge of two deposit letters, Ex. A-4 and the evidence that it was executed in discharge of an earlier deposit letter Ex. A-4 and A-6 dated 13-11-1955 for Rs. 8006-12-6 and Rs. 13435-2-3 respectively. It is clear from the recitals in Ex. A-6 and the evidence that it was executed in discharge of an earlier deposit letter Ex. A-2 dated 2-4-1947 executed by Kasi Chettiar in favour of th...
Tag this Judgment!S. Arthanari Vs. First Income-tax Officer, Salem, and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR828(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - The petitioner is challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (central), Madras-34, the 2nd respondent herein, dated June 10, 1965, which relates to the assessment of the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1956-57. The petitioner was a partner in the firm of Ramani Bus Service, Salem, in which his wife was also a partner. The firm returned provisionally an income of Rs. 17,294 for the assessment year 1956-57. On the basis of the said provisional return of the firm, the petitioners individual assessment as partner of the firm for the aforesaid year was completed on March 19, 1957. The firms final assessment was, however, completed later, on June 28, 1957. In the said order, the Income-tax Officer granted depreciation under the first part of section 10(2) (vi) as also additional depreciation under section 10(2) (vi), but did not allow initial depreciation under the latter part of section 10(2) (vi). This initial depreciation was disallowed o...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Electro Diamonds and ors. Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC221(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. These six writ petitions are connected and raise a common question. The petitioner in each of these writ petitions is a dealer in synthetic diamonds. His course of business is to despatch packets of synthetic diamonds to prospective buyers outside the State and if they are approved then it is customary for him to raise an invoice and thereafter obtain a C form certificate and follow the usual procedure in connection with the filing of returns under the Central Sales Tax Act and the connected rules thereunder. He would also state that some of the packets of synthetic diamonds so sent by him to the prospective buyers were returned back as not approved. The case of the petitioner is that, on the basis of the despatches made by him of the diamonds and without taking into consideration fully the quantum and value of the diamonds returned by ' the prospective buyers, a proposal has been made to assess the petitioner on the basis of such despatches and on the foot ...
Tag this Judgment!C.H.S. Sabherwal and Surinder Singh Sabherwal Vs. the Joint Commercial ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC316(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer in automobile parts. For the year 1963-64 he was assessed finally to tax on 31st December, 1964. The premises of the petitioner was inspected on 9th March, 1967, and 18th March, 1967. Ten exercise note-books were recovered in the course of the inspection by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Central Intelligence. He made his own notes on the exercise books so recovered. He held the view that the stock as per the stock book kept by the firm and disclosed to the authority was much in variance with the stock disclosed in the exercise note-books recovered. He therefore estimated the value of the closing stock of the firm as on 31st March, 1963, at Rs. 7,43,414.71. After considering such large variations and after the partner of the firm was confronted with such a fact, the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Central Intelligence Section, forwarded the papers to the assessing authority to revise the assessment for 1963-64 on the basis of the d...
Tag this Judgment!L. Vedagiri Vs. M.S. Devaraja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ433
ORDERN. Krishnaswamy Reddy, J.1. The appellant-accused Vedagiri, who was convicted by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under Section 17 (3) read with Section 33 (i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, has preferred this appeal.2. The prosecution case is this: The respondent filed a private complaint against the appellant alleging that he (the appellant) contravened the interim order passed by the Rent Controller (VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) in LA. No. 549 of 1969 in H.R.C. No. 929 of 1969, directing him to restore the supply of electricity to the handloom factory, which was in the occupation of the complainant as tenant.3. It was contended by the appellant before the learned Presidency Magistrate that though an interim order passed by the Rent Controller, directing him to restore the supply of electricity, he immediately ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M. Anwaraulla Am. Ghouse and Company Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC610(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. This batch of petitions raises the validity of item 7(a) and (b) in the Second Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In Writ Petition No. 734 of 1970 the petitioner is a dealer in hides and skins, whose turnover for the assessment year 1968-69 was determined which consisted of purchases of raw hides and skins, as well as of tanned hides and skins, goat and sheep hair sales and purchase of tanning materials. A smaller amount of the turnover related to kasar sales. But we are concerned only with the first two types of turnover. The first transaction of purchase of raw hides and skins included both local purchases, as well as inter-State purchases. The second comprised of local and export sales of tanned hides and skins. The local purchases of raw hides and skins amounted to the value of Rs. 68,20,377.15 and inter-State purchases of similar goods were valued at Rs. 41,11,618.33. Local sales of hides and skins accounted for a turnover of Rs. 75,047. . No q...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Thankachi Vs. N. Narayana Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad116; (1971)2MLJ429
1. The petition is to revise an order of the Principal District Munsif of Padmanabhapuram on an application made by the mortgagee-defendants under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Civil P. C., for the amendment of the final decree. The suit was instituted by the petitioner for redemption of a mortgage. A preliminary decree was passed on 20th December 1965, which directed allotment of the southern 5/8th share to the petitioner and the northern 3/8th share to the defendants 7 and 8. This was done on a joint endorsement of the concerned parties. Pending an application made by the petitioner for passing a final decree, the mortgagee-defendants applied for appointment of a Commissioner to value the improvements. According to them, they were entitled to the value of the improvements from 1886, but the petitioner admitted the same only for the period subsequent to 1920. In view of this controversy, the Munsif appointed a Commissioner by an order dated 13th July 1966, by which he directed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Arulanandam Vethakannu Nadar and ors. Vs. Bhagavathi Pillai Thankachi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad207
1. Appellants in App. No. 684 of 1963 are defendants 40 to 45 in O. S. 64 of 1954 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Padmanabhapuram. appellant in App. No. 693 of 1963 is the 24th defendant in the same suit. These appeals have been preferred against the final decree and order in I. A. 134 of 1963 in O. S. No. 64 of 1954, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Padmanabhapuram.2. The only contention urged by the appellants in App. No. 684 of 1963 is that the suit is barred by res judicata in respect of the claim made against them. The plaintiffs in O. S. 64 of 1954, on the file of the lower court, filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the same after setting aside certain alienations. The appellants in App. No. 684 of 1963 on the file of the lower court are interested only in plaint items 53 to57. These items of properties belonged to one Chemmanthitta Tarwad and the members of that Tarwad mortgaged these p...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Henry Vs. J.V.K. Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad64; (1971)2MLJ297
ORDER1. The tenant is the petitioner in the revision petition. The respondent-landlord is the owner of premises No. 9 Ritherdon Road, Vepery. He had leased the first floor to one tenant and the ground floor to the petitioner. The respondent had planned to remodel the entire house at huge cost and also obtained the requisite sanction from the corporation for remodelling, reconstruction, repairs etc. The respondent required both the tenants to vacate and hand over possession for carrying out his work. The tenant in the first floor complied with his request and the landlord carried out in the first floor the work of remodelling involving demolition, reconstruction, repairs etc. After this was over, the landlord against pressed and requested the petitioner to vacate and hand over the ground floor so that the work may be completed. Correspondence passed between the parties and as the tenant declined to vacate, the landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lea...
Tag this Judgment!Madurai Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Balasubramaniam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad13; [1971]41CompCas924(Mad); (1971)2MLJ400
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Co, against the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras in M. A. C. T. O. P. 157 of 1966. There was an accident at about 7-40 a. m. on 21-2-1966 in front of premises No. 43 Moore Street, Madras, when the lorry M D A 297 hit against a lamp post which in turn hit the right leg of the first respondent herein. Thereby the first respondent sustained injuries, namely, deep and extensive laceration of the sole of foot heel and the back of right ankle joint with bleeding. He was an inpatient in the General Hospital for some time. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 30,500 for the injuries sustained by him. The compensation of Rs. 30,500 claimed comprised of Rs. 15000 for loss of work, physical impairment and loss of future prospects and Rs. 500 for expenses incurred. The claim was resisted by the appellant Insurance Co., as well as the second respondent herein, the owner of the lorry, on various grounds. They denied that the ac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »