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.
Srila Sri Sivagnana Balaya Swamigal Madalayam, Mailam and Bommayyapala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ605
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. Old S.No. 221/1-A, in Mailam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, South Arcot District, measuring 13.47 acres originally belonged to one Thirumudi Ghettiar and two others of Pondicherry. The entire land was subject to a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the petitioner in these two cases, namely, Srila Sri Sivagnana Balaya Swamigal Madalayam, Mailam. The mortgage was of the year 1933. In the year ig4i, an extent of 31 cents out of the total extent of 13.47 acres was sub-divided as 221/1A/1A, and the remaining extent was sub-divided as 221/1A/1B. For the purpose of constructing a public well, the said extent of 31 cents was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the year ig4i. The compensation amount was paid to the petitioner-mutt as usufructuary mortgagee. The petitioner purchased the remaining property from the previous owner by a registered document dated i4th September, 1947. Though the extent of 31 ...
K. Vs. Srinivasan V. Income-tax Officer, Collection Branch, Circle Ii ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR299(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - The petitioner is the owner of a house and premises No. 28/5, Chamiers Road, Madras-28. On August 1, 1970, he entered into an agreement with Sri Annamalai Mudaliar, residing at No. 27, Padavatta Amman Koil Street, Madras-7, for the sale of the property for Rs. 60,000. One of the terms of the agreement is that the petitioner should register the sale either in the name of Sri Annamalai Mudaliar or in the name of any one of his nominees, if the petitioner is asked to do. But, as the value of the property exceeds Rs. 50,000 the petitioner is obliged in law to obtain a certificate under section 230A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, from the Income-tax Officer of the division concerned certifying that he has paid the tax payable by him under law and has also satisfied the other prescriptions in section 230A of the Act. According to the petitioner, when he satisfies the Income-tax Officer that he has paid the taxes under the various taxing statutes of our country and as enume...
Amirthalinga Pandarathar and anr. Vs. Kesavachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad253; (1971)2MLJ415
1. The defendants are the appellants. The suit was for possession and past and future mesne profits. The facts leading to this appeal are. The properties in plaint A and B schedules in Maduranthaganallur belong to the plaintiff who was cultivating the same personally. Under the original of Ex. A-1, registration copy of the mortgage deed, dated 2-9-1962, he usufructuarily mortgaged the A schedule properties consisting of three items, measuring 1.93 acres, to his sister Thangammal of Kammapuram, 16 miles away from the suit village. The first defendant who was working as kariasthar under the plaintiff and whose services were terminated in the beginning of 1962 due to faction in the village took the lands usufructuarily mortgaged to the sister of the plaintiff, viz, the A schedule lands, on lease, and cultivated the same. Then he trespassed into the B schedule lands taking advantage of the fact that he was a lessee of the A schedule lands.The said usufructuary mortgage was discharged on 3-...
P. Narayanasami Reddiar Vs. K.M. Jayarama Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ369
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 60 of 1964, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupattur, who lost before the trial Court, as well as the first appellate Court, is the appellant before this Court. One Kullathai alias Amavasai Reddi was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 76 of 1954, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vellore, for recovery of possession of certain immovable properties. Under Exhibit A-4 dated 19th March, 1959, the said Amavasai Reddi sold the properties covered by the decree in O.S. No. 76 of 1954 in favour of the respondent herein. However, the appellant herein claimed to have obtained an assignment of the decree from the very same Amavasai Reddy under a document marked as Exhibit B-1 dated 9th March, 1959. On the strength of this assignment, he applied to the Court for recognition of the assignment and the same was ordered. Thereafter, when he proceeded to take delivery of possession of the properties, the same was obstructed by the R...
P.V. Palaniappa Pillai Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC502(Mad)
ORDER1. These writ petitions relate to assessment orders passed by the respondent for the years 1960-61 to 1965-66. In so far as the years 1960-61 to 1963-64 are concerned, the assessments are under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The two other assessments are provisional assessments. The petitioner is an agriculturist residing at Uralipatty in Melur Taluk, Madurai District. Besides his occupation as an agriculturist, the petitioner engages himself in an avocation such as obtaining on lease the cocoanut topes situate in and around his village belonging to third parties, gathers the cocoanuts from such topes and disposes of the same in open market. The petitioner himself says that he pays the lease amounts agreed between himself as lessee and the owner of the tope as lessor, out of the sale proceeds of cocoanuts gathered by him as the lessee of the garden. He did not register himself as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessing authorit...
Pandurangan Vs. Govinda Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1971
Reported in: 1971CriLJ1399
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. P.W. 1 is the complainant. His grievance is that Ex. P. 1 in the form known as 'certificate of landed property' which he has been printing since 1960 is printed and sold by the petitioner. He claimed that he devised this form so as to be intelligible even to ordinary people. I do not find any extraordinary genius or cleverness in devising this form, for it is a total copying of the same printed form in the official gazette. In his evidence, he further states that he divided Ex. P. 1 No doubt, Ex. P. 1 contains the Tamil translation under each head containing particulars in English language, for example, the name of the applicant; P.W. 1. seems to have translated it as 'Manudhar Peyar.' His further evidence is that the accused-petitioner infringed his copyright by publishing Ex. P. 5 forms. It is true the petitioner was selling forms like Ex. P. 5 The Sub Inspector also secured a similar form like the one found in Exs, P. 1 and P. 5, namely Ex. P. 8, Exs. P. 5 ...
Sri Murugan theatre, Madurai Vs. the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Set ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad30
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, J. dismissing W.P. 3915 of 1970 at the admission stage. The appellant is Murgan Theatre represented by its partner Sadayandi. Sri Murugan Theatre is a permanent cinema theatre in the revenue village of Andipatti in Madurai Dt. One Muthukaruppaswami Moopanar filed an application before the Collector for a certificate of no-objection to locate a touring cinema in S. No. 918/1 of Andipatti village, within the limits of Ethosakoil Panchayat. This application was made under the provisions of the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955, (Madras Act 9 of 1955). The appellant made his representations before the Collector objecting to the grant of the certificate. The Collector refused the certificate. An appeal was preferred by Muthukaruppasami Moopanar to the Board as provided under the Act and the rules. The appeal was allowed and the Board granted a no-objection certificate. Against that W.P. No. 3915 of 1970 was filed....
Shah Chandanbhan Roopchand Bohra and Co. Vs. the Union of India and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad260
ORDER1. The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business in silver wares and pawn broking, having its place of business at No. 103, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Madras. The partners are Champalal and Manikchand. On 10th January, 1966 at about 3 p.m., the Central Excise Department Officers searched the firm's premises and recovered new gold ornaments weighing 644.100 gm. and melted gold weighing 43.500 gms. all over 14 carat purity. Manickchand gave a statement on the same day admitting having kept the gold ornaments for sale and the primary gold for making a necklace. The officers seized the jewels and gold under a mahazar attested by two witnesses. On the same day, the other partner, Champalal, also gave statement corroborating what the other partner Manikchand had stated. A notice was issued to the petitioner-firm to show cause why action should not be taken under the Gold Control Rules and why the seized gold ornaments should not be confiscated. The petitioner-firm replied stat...
Marakayar Brothers Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1971
Reported in: (1971)IIMLJ140; [1971]28STC127(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is the same in all the three writ petitions. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business as a dealer in cement, diesel oil and petrol at Mandapam in Ramanathapuram District. He is a registered dealer. The petitioner entered into an agreement on 28th October, 1964, with the Industrial Chemicals Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, for the purpose of quarrying the coral limestones from the reefs in a mine for which the Industrial Chemicals Limited obtained a mining lease from the Government. The mine is situate at the fringes of the islands of Talaivi, Valai and Mulli in Ramanathapuram Taluk in Ramanathapuram District. The lease itself is for a period of five years from 10th June, 1964. The consideration recited in the agreement dated 28th October, 1964, is that the petitioner who is characterised as a contractor should be remunerated for such service undertaken by him to quarry the stone from the reefs in the manner...
M. Vishindas Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1971
Reported in: (1971)IIMLJ90; [1971]28STC44(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. For the year 1964-65 the petitioner was assessed originally to sales tax in respect of his dealings in connection with his business in Tiruchirapalli as a general merchant under the name and style of 'Meena Traders'. On 20th August, 1966, there was a search and seizure of several incriminating slips and diaries from the business premises and residence of the petitioner. Proceedings, therefore, were initiated under Section 16 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and ultimately, after following the usual procedure, a revised order was made by the assessing authority on 26th September, 1966. The petitioner appealed successfully before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who set aside the order of the assessing authority and remanded the matter once over to it to enable the assessing authority to give an adequate and fair opportunity to the assessee to explain the incriminating material recovered in the course of the search or raid, as stated above. The order of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »