Chennai Court March 1971 Judgments
Dr. N. Natesan Vs. Mrs. S. Santhalakshmi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ164
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner is the unsuccessful landlord whose petition for eviction of the respondent Under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) from premises No. 8 Abhiramapuram First Street, Madras-18 on the ground that he bona fide required the same for his own use and occupation and also for the use of his son, had been dismissed. The application for eviction filed by the petitioner was contested by the respondent on the ground that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide and that, in any event, her two daughters who are living with her having been employed in essential service an eviction order cannot be passed in view of the protection given Under Section 10(4) of the Act. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner's requirement of the premises for the occupation of himself and his son is bona fide. But he found that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of eviction on the ground that the respondent's ...
Tag this Judgment!N.A. Ramanatha Iyer and ors. Vs. Bathul Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ383
G. Ramanujam, J. 1. The tenants are the petitioners herein. The landlords who are the same in both the cases filed eviction petitions against them on the ground that the building is bona fide required for demolition and reconstruction. The eviction petitions were resisted by the petitioners on two grounds: (1) that the respondent's requirement is not bona Me and (2) that the notice terminating the tenancy in this case is defective and as such, the tenancies have not been duly terminated as per law. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have rejected the defence put forward by the petitioner and ordered eviction holding that the tenancies have been duly terminated and that the requirement of the landlord of the premises for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction was quite bona fide. 2. In these revision, the learned Counsel for the petitioners urges the same two contentions as were urged before the Courts below. On the question of bona fide requirement, the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Mohamad Nachiar Vs. the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Mayuram and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad146
ORDER1. In the Writ Petition the constitutional validity of sections of the Madras Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, (Act LVII of 1961) is questioned. In the direction in Krishnaraju Reddiar v. Authorised Officer, : AIR1967Mad352 the validity of the Act has been upheld. It has been held that the matter falls under entry 18 in the State List. This Act is included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, but Article 31-B saves the validity of Acts included in the Ninth Schedule, only in as far as they contravene any of the fundamental rights. What is now urged on behalf of the petitioner is that Section 6 is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. I am personally convinced that there is no substance in this contention. Section 6 is an incidental provision. That apart, even if it should be held to be a legislation with regard to charitable or religious endowments, it will fall under entry 10 or entry 28 as well as entry 5 of the Concurrent List, if it s...
Tag this Judgment!A.A. Kasi Annamalai Nadar and Company Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Office ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC462(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The assessee is the same in all these petitions. It is a firm which during the relevant period was trading as a partnership firm and was a 'dealer' under the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The firm used to submit monthly returns under Form A-II. For the years 1959-60 and 1960-61, when the matter of final assessment for the assessment years in question came up, the petitioner was asked to be present on a particular date but the notice of hearing given for the said purpose was served beyond three days of such date fixed for the hearing. Nevertheless, the assessing authority, on the foot that the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed for the hearing of the assessment proceedings, rendered an ex parte assessment order on 30th November, 1964. For the years 1961-62 and 1962-63, a similar notice of hearing of the proceedings was fixed for 25th November, 1964. The petitioner was called upon to produce the books of account on that date. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Ammonia Supply Corporation Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Rattan Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC356(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. 'Messrs Ammonia Supply Corporation' is a partnership firm. It had five partners originally consisting of the father, wife, son, daughter-in-law and a third party. This was dissolved on 11th October, 1967. The dissolution was duly intimated to the taxing authorities and the registration certificate issued to the firm was surrendered. After such dissolution, a new firm, consisting of different partners, but drawn from the same family, was constituted on 13th October, 1967. The newly constituted partnership firm consists of the sons, mother and daughter-in law and a third party. It is not in dispute that this new firm got itself registered as a dealer, after its constitution on 15th October, 1967, and obtained new and separate registration certificates both under the Madras General Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act.2. For the year 1966-67, the old firm of the Ammonia Supply Corporation was assessed to sales tax both under the Madras General Sale...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendrakumar Ishwarlal and Co. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC551(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner, a dealer in jaggery, groundnut kernel etc., which is a partnership firm submitted the returns in Form A-1 for the assessment year 1966-67 to the respondent who is admittedly the original assessing authority. The assessing authority perused the returns and pointed out in a memo. dated 29th April, 1967, that there were certain mistakes apparent in the return and called upon him to correct his return. In fact he would say that the return includes a turnover which is not liable to tax; and he also pointed out that certain portions of the turnover, as disclosed in the return, were liable to tax at a specified percentage. But he added that unless revised return is filed within seven days of the receipt of that memo., which he calls a notice, he would provisionally assess him and levy a penalty for wilfully submitting an untrue return. It is as against this notice that the petitioner has come up to this Court stating that no provisional assessment c...
Tag this Judgment!State by the Public Prosecutor Vs. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1479
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The accused, Natarajan, has been found guilty Under Section 380, IPC by the Sub Magistrate, Paramakudi, in C. C. No. 517 of 1969 on his file, and has been committed to the Senior Certified School, Thattaparai, for two years Under Section 23 (1) of the Madras Children Act. In another case also, viz., in C. C. No. 516 of 1969, on the file of the Sub Magistrate, Paramakudi, the accused has been convicted for offences Under Sections 457 and 380, IPC and has been committed by the same Magistrate to the Senior Certified School, Thattaparai, for two years Under Section 23 (1) of the Madras Children Act. Both these convictions were made on the basis of the admission of guilt by Natarajan, the accused. The State has filed these revision petitions against the consecutive sentences ordered by the learned sub Magistrate.2. No doubt, Section 24 of the Madras Children Act mentions about the detention in the school being for a period of not less than two and not more than fi...
Tag this Judgment!Pitchai Vs. the Collector of Madurai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ62
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, is whether the petitioner received the compensation amount on 3rd November, 1966, under protest or not. On the basis that he received the amount under protest, the petitioner has filed this writ petition asking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. A land belonging to the petitioner was acquired under the Act and an award was passed on 26th September, 1966. From the records it is seen that the petitioner received the 'C' form cheque on 3rd November, 1966. On 28th November, 1966, the petitioner wrote to the Acquisition Officer, stating that the compensation was low and that a reference might be made under Section 18 of the Act. There was no reply to that communication. The petitioner, through his Advocate, repeated the request on 22nd April, 1968 stating th...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Gounder and ors. Vs. Athapa Gounder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ349
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Second Appeal No. 1644 of 1967 arises out of O.S. No. 732 of 1962, while S.A. No. 633 of 1967 arises out of O.S. No. 735 of 1962. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 732 of 1962 and defendants in O.S. No. 735 of 1962 who are the self-same persons, are the appellants in the above second appeals.2. O.S. No. 732 of 1962 was a suit by the appellants for a declaration that the suit property belonged to them and for an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession. There was also a prayer therein for directing the respondents to restore the fence put up by the appellants to demarcate the boundaries of their enjoyment in respect of the suit property, by means of a mandatory injunction.3. O.S. No. 735 of 1962 was filed by the first and sixth defendants in O.S. No. 732 of 1962 both for themselves and on behalf of the villagers of Kalingarayanpalayam Palayur, Mettunasuvampalayam, Erode Taluk, against the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 732 of 1962 in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Rajendera Mills Ltd. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT551(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J.The turnover in question relating to what is stated 10 be lending of cotton is the subject-matter of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The matter relates to the year 1967-68. For the earlier year, we are told that a similar turnover was considered by the Tribunal, which was of opinion that the transactions amounted to leading and they were not sales. When the appeal in respect of the year 1967-68 is pending, we do not think it desirable and necessary to deal with the matter under article 226 of the Constitution. Normally, the assessee should be compelled to resort to the statutory remedy. In fact, in this case, he has availed himself of it and he must await the result.But an apprehension is expressed on behalf of the assessee that because a tax case has been filed against the Tribunal's decision relating to the year 1967-68, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner might feel that he was not bound by the view of the Tribunal. We cons...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »