Chennai Court June 1971 Judgments
Mullaikodiammal Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad132; (1971)2MLJ449
ORDER1. The petitioner is a landlady. Her family owned four houses No. 17. Typhoon Alikhan Bahadur St. Triplicane Madras, No. 17-A Typhoon Ali Khan Bahadur St. Triplicane. No. 40 Arunachala Achari St, Triplicane and No. 71 De Mellows Road Choolai,. Madras. The last house is a non-residential premises. She was residing with her husband at No. 40 Arunchala Achari St. till 1968 when her husband died. Thereafter the petitioner had to perform the marriage of her daughter and she decided to sell away her property No. 40 Arunachala Achari St. Triplicane, Madras and give vacant possession of the same to a purchaser. With this object in view, she vacated the premised in the latter part of 1969 and occupied an inconvenient portion in the ground floor of No. 17-A Typhoon Ali Khan Bahadur St. Triplicane, Madras and ultimately, it is said, that she sold away her property No. 40 Arunachala Achari St. Triplicane. At the time when she shifted her family from No. 40 Arunachala Achari St. Triplicane. At...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Lakshmana Shah and anr. Vs. the Commissioner for Hindu Religious ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad319; (1971)2MLJ495
1. Appellants filed an application under S. 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, XIX of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act, before the Deputy Commissioner claiming to be the hereditary trustees of Sri Balasubramaniaswami temple, Narayananaicken St., Komaleswaranpet, Madras-2. The learned Deputy Commissioner has held by his order Ex. B-10, that the office of the trustee of the suit temple is not hereditary and that the appellants are not hereditary trustees. The appellants unsuccessfully appealed to the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, as seen from the order Ex. B-14. But in dismissing the appeal, the Commissioner made an observation that the Area Committee will select trustees from the members of the Samavamsam Bhuja Kshatriya Kulam. The appellants filed this suit, O. S. 411 of 1960, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for setting aside or cancelling the order of the Commissioner and to recognise their clai...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muthusamy Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ795
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The Electrical charge-man who had examined M. O. 1 and issued the certificate Ex. P. 5 has not been examined by the prosecution to prove that it is railway property in actual use. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that there was cause for reasonable suspicion of the stores being stolen or unlawfully obtained. Before any one can be charged with the offence under Section 3 of the Railway Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act 1955, it must be shown that he was in possession of railway stores which by the definition of Section do not include all articles which are the property of a railway administration but only those which are used or intended to be used in the construction, operation or maintenance of a railway. There is no evidence to this effect in the case. Mere unlawful possession of the property of any railway administration is not an offence. The prosecution must also prove that the articles were being actually used or were intended to be used...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thangavelu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ403
1. The five appellant seek to question their convictions and sentences under Sections 147, Indian. Penal Code (A-1 to A-5), 148, Indian Penal Code (A-1 and A-2) 302, Indian Penal Code (A-1) 448, Indian Penal Code (A-1 and A-2) and 324, Indian Penal Code (A-1 and A-2). 2. Appavu (deceased), is the brother of Ammasai, P.W. 2, and P.W.4 is the wife of the former. Thangavelu (A-1) and Vetrivelu (A-2) are brothers. Kaliaperumal (A-3) is their half brother. Kaliaperumal (A-4) and Sothukatti alias Thiagarajan (A-5) are the associates of the other accused. These prosecution witnesses and the accused belong to the village of Pullianthurai. There has been some amount of factious enmity subsisting between Appavu and Thangavelu (A-1) since Appavu demanded from the latter, accounts for the collections and expendie ture relating to the village kaman templ-festival. The first accused questioned Appavu's right to demand accounts and he refused to account. Appavu and his brother Ammasai (P.W. 2) did no...
Tag this Judgment!Suppanna Kavundar Vs. Subbulakshmi (Alias) Papathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ110
Veeraswami, C.J.1. The second appeal arises from a suit for partition. The first defendant is the appellant, whose daughter-in-law claimed a sixth share in the joint family properties. The first defendant had two wives. By the first of them, he had a son, the second defendant, and a daughter. The third defendant is the second wife, by when he had a son, who died leaving his widow, the plaintiff. Right from March, 1930, the first defendant and his two brothers and father, who were each entitled to a fourth share, sold the family properties, the proceeds of which they shared between themselves. The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties were acquired by the first defendant out of the nucleus, consisting of the sale proceeds allotted to his share. The suit was resisted on the ground that there was no such nucleus, that the properties were the self-acquisitions of the appellant and the plaintiff was not entitled to a share. Both the Courts below have held that except items 41 and 42 of...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Lyer and anr. Vs. Thiruvidamarudur Sri Manalingaswami Deva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad167
V. Ramaswami, J.1. Defendants are the appellants in both these appeals. The plaintiff is the Thiruvidaimarudur Sri Mahalingaswami Devastanam represented by its hereditary trustees. The plaintiff is the owner of the land bearing survey No. 197/4 measuring 2 acres 9 cents situate in Railadi Street, Thiruvidaimaruthur. Out of this one acre of land was leased by the plaintiff to a tenant who had put up some building for running a rice mill there. The building put up by the tenant was later on purchased by Sankara Iyer, the first defendant. Under Ex. A. 1, dated 27-6-1951, the said Sankara Iyer became lessee under the plaintiff. The term fixed in the lease was three years. It was agreed that on the expiry of the lease period the tenant should with all superstructures standing thereon on receiving compensation for value of the superstructures. The lease period was to expire on 26-6-1954. On 10-4-1954, the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice calling upon the tenant Sankara Iyer to surrender po...
Tag this Judgment!N. Ramana Reddy Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Sowcarpet Divisi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC683(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is a dealer of rice in Andhra Pradesh. It is said that he used to bring rice from Andhra Pradesh and sell the stock in Madras through various commission agents in Madras. The department is said to have received information that between 4th October, 1963, and 16th October, 1963, the petitioner purchased large stocks of rice, to wit, 2863 bags of rice from one Messrs Moorthy & Co., 15, Chinnathambi Mudali Street, Madras, and effected sale of such stocks so purchased by him. After securing this information, investigation was undertaken by the Special Staff of the Commercial Taxes Department, as the petitioner did not submit his returns of turnover in form A3, as required under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The investigation disclosed that there were certain money dealings between the petitioner on the one hand and Messrs Moorthy & Co., on the other, and in order to realise such monies advanced by the petitioner to Messrs Moorthy & Co., i...
Tag this Judgment!N. K. Leela Thampatty Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Mad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-22-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR903(Mad)
RAMAPRASADA RAO J. - The assessee is the karnavathi of an undivided Marumakkattayam toward, consisting of three shares, according to the partition in the Nilambur Kovilagam. She owns lands in Gudalur Taluka, but it is common ground that she has leased them out to estates. She does not do any cultivation. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Gudalur, by his order dated February 15, 1962, assessed the petitioner for a total agricultural income of Rs. 14,882.43 and to a tax of Rs. 1,796.49 for the assessment year 1961-62. The case of the petitioner is that the income is not taxable agricultural income as it related to the proceeds of sale of timber trees of spontaneous growth. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the petitioner and even so the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Ootacamund. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner relied upon a decision of the Appellate Tribunal in A. T. A. No. 82 of 1961 dated August 17, 1962, declaring that the...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muthusankara Nadar Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1971
Reported in: [1972]29STC242(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of one Sri Purushothaman, who along with one Mounaguruswami was carrying on business in cardamom and other commodities in partnership under the name and style of Messrs M. Puru-shotham and Co., hereafter referred to as the firm. The firm ceased to do business from 1st April, 1962, and there is no dispute on this factual situation. During the year 1958-59, the question arose as to the liability of the firm to suffer sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and though the firm was assessed initially, later at the intervention of the Board of Revenue, the order of assessment by the original authority was cancelled against which it is said, Tax Case No. 207 of 1970 has been filed and is pending disposal in this court. We are not, however, concerned in this case with the year 1958-59. During the subsequent year 1959-60, the original authority again found the firm liable to pay sales tax...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Kuppuswami Chettiar Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC570(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner, a partner of an oil-mill at Bhavani, has filed this writ petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition preventing the authorities from enforcing and proceeding with the notice of attachment dated 5th June, 1967, issued as against the petitioner on the foot that a sum of about 2. Rs. 58,000 and odd was due by the petitioner towards tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The gravamen of the charge is that in the order of assessment, which is the foundation for the issue of the notice challenged in this writ proceeding, which apparently emanated under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, the provisions of which are also attracted in case default is made in the payment of determined tax, the original authorities finally assessed the petitioner to tax on grounds which are neither proper nor legal and my particular attention was drawn to the fact that under the Central Sales Tax...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »