Chennai Court March 1971 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.
T.S.A. Hamid and anr. Vs. Sri Alanduraiapparswami Temple and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad372
1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 19 of 1967 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram, who succeeded before the trial court, but lost before the first appellate court, are the appellants before this court. The controversy in the second appeal lies within a narrow compass and the facts necessary for the purpose of appreciating that controversy may be briefly states as follows. The first respondent temple conducts a private market on a land which is the subject-matter of the suit. It is the common case of the parties that the first respondent temple had obtained a licence from the Municipality for the conduct of the said market, and the market is being conducted in accordance with the stipulations laid down by the Municipality and on payment of licence fee to the Municipality. The various fees or charges from the persons who come into the shandy for the purpose of exposing and selling their articles or wares are collected as laid down by the municipality itself. It is al...
The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Vs. Lakshminarayana Textiles (P.) Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC288(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. It seems to us that the Tribunal took the correct view. The facts found by the Tribunal are these. The assessee borrowed a certain amount of cotton from one Valliappa Textiles, which had imported the same under the actual user's licence. The borrowing was permitted by the Textile Commissioner who directed that the loan should be returned in the shape of cotton and that neither of the transactions should be treated as a sale. It is not in dispute that the cotton imported under the actual user's licence cannot be sold. That is apparently the reason why the Textile Commissioner gave permission to the assessee to take cotton on loan. The transaction now sought to be taxed consisted of the return of cotton to Valliappa Textiles. The transaction clearly does not amount to a sale and is not a sale. The Tribunal was right in finding that it was only a loan transaction. It may be, as contended by the department, money was paid by the assessee to Valliappa Textiles, Bangalore...
Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd. Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC483(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. The turnover in question relating to what is stated to 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 lending 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.2. 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. ...
A. Appathurai Nadar and ors. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Srivai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC681(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer in grocery articles and pulses and carries on business at No. 137, Great Cotton Road, Tuticorin. On 23rd October, 1961, the place of business of the petitioner was inspected by the. Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli, and others. Four pieces of paper containing certain cash balances and relatable to the period from 6th February, 1961, to 20th October, 1961, were recovered thereunder. In connection with the said recovery of the slips disclosing certain cash balances, an explanation was called for from the petitioner on 24th October, 1961, The petitioner explained in December, 1961, stating that the figures mentioned in the slips were not and could not be any turnover relating to any business of his and the said figures represented advances or loans to third parties. The revenue's case is that there was a notice calling for an explanation regarding the slips and the explanation as above was rendered by the petitioner ...
T. Ezhumalai Vs. Padmavathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ121
G. Ramanujam, J.1. The tenant is the petitioner herein and he questions the validity of the order of eviction passed against him at the instance of the respondent (landlady) Under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Madras Act XVIII of 1960. The respondent sought an order of eviction against the petitioner on two grounds (1) that she required the building bona fide for her own occupation for carrying on a business which her husband is carrying on in a rented premises and (2) that the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of the arrears of rent. The petition for eviction was resisted by the petitioner and his defence was four-fold. (1) That there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respond dent who is only a usufructuary mortgagee to whom he had not attorned, (2) that the respondent's requirement is not bona fide as neither the respondent nor her husband was carrying on any business, (3) that the default, if any, was not wilful and (4)...
P. Kandappa Gounder Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer, Salem, and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR42(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - The petitioner is aggrieved against an order of attachment of immovable property passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated August 31, 1965. He is seeking for a writ of prohibition against the respondents from giving further effect to the impugned notice in the following circumstances.The petitioners case is that he was admittedly a partner of an unregistered firm carrying on business under the name and style of standard starch Products Company, Salem, It is not in dispute that this business was carried on in land No. 48 in Sandhiyur Village, Salem Taluk. The petitioner was no doubt associated in partnership with N. Jagannathan, P. Kandasami Chettiar and M. Doraisami Chettiar. But the petitioners case is that their trading style was different from the one adopted by the firm against which the revenue initiated proceedings to assess the firm for first time for the year 1946-47. What happened was that, during the year of assessment, the Standard Starch Man...
M.R. Pratap and anr. Vs. the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad18; (1971)IIMLJ95
ORDER1. M. R. Pratap, the petitioner in W. P. 3004 of 1969, is the Managing Director of Messrs. Rayala Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. the petitioner in W. P. 3005 of 1969. The company is carrying on the business of manufacture of Halda typewriters out of the materials imported from abroad. The respondent in both the petitions is the Director of Enforcement New Delhi, appointed by the Central Government under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of that Act. On 20th and 21st December 1966, the premises of the company were raided by the Enforcement Directorate and certain records were seized at that time. Some enquiries were made subsequently. On 25th August 1967, a notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioners asking them to show cause as to why adjudication proceedings should not be instituted against them for violation of certain provisions of the Act on the allegation that a total sum of (Swedish K...
Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Daniel and Anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad15; [1971]41CompCas922(Mad); (1971)2MLJ377
ORDER1. The second respondent in the lower court is the petitioner herein. The above revision petition is directed against the order in O. P. No. 583 of 1966 on the file of the Additional Claims Tribunal, Madras under Section 110(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act awarding compensation to the first respondent of Rs. 1330. the first respondent filed the above O. P. claiming compensation of Rs. 5000 for the injuries alleged to have been caused to him by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry MSY 3068 belonging to the second respondent on 2-10-1966 at 9 p.m. in Walltax Road, Madras. The vehicle was insured to the petitioner-company. The Insurance Company denied that the accident was brought about by any rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. In any event, it is contended that the claim is excessive. The Insurance Company raised further contention that the driver of the vehicle MSY 3068 by name Pakkiriswami did not hold a valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. T...
R. Tulasi Vs. Hamed Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad61; (1971)2MLJ249
ORDER1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the lower Court refusing to implead the petitioner herein as a party defendant in O. S. 644 of 1966 filed by the first respondent herein. The first respondent filed the above suit for recovery of possession of certain properties from six persons on the ground that they were her lessees, and that they had not only committed wilful default in the payment of the arrears of rent but also repudiated their tenancies. The said suit was resisted by the said six persons on the ground that they were not the tenants of the plaintiff-first respondent, but that they were the tenants under the petitioner herein. After filling of the written statement by the said six persons the petitioner filed an application to implied himself as a party defendant in the suit and that application has been dismissed by the lower court not only on the ground that he is an unnecessary party but also on the ground that he cannot be said to have any valid t...
C. Ponnudurai, Official Receiver Vs. K.A. Kumaraswamy Mudaliar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ252
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The Official Receiver, Chingleput, who failed to have a sale in favour of the second respondent in a Court auction sale held on 4th September, 1967 in E.P.No. 594 of 1966 in O.S.No. 92 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kanchipuram set aside, is the petitioner herein. One Kumaraswami Mudaliar, the first respondent herein filed a suit against the third respondent and obtained a decree in O.S.No. 92 of 1966. In execution of that decree, the decree-holder brought the judgment-debtor's property to sale. The sale was fixed for 4th September, 1967. On 1st September, 1967 the third respondent, judgment-debtor, filed I.P.No. 9 of 1967 and the petition was directed to be published on 4th September, 1967 and actually the petitioner herein was appointed as interim Receiver on 6th September, 1967. There was an order adjudicating the judgment-debtor as insolvent on 26th February, 1968. Before the sale fixed for 4th September, 1967 by the executing Court coul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »