Chennai Court July 1971 Judgments
Madras Cements Limited Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1971
Reported in: [1973]31STC221(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. In these four writ petitions, a common question arises. The first three writ petitions are for the issue of writs of prohibition and the last one, though originally filed for the issue of a writ of prohibition, was later converted into one for the issue of writ of certiorari, since by then the order of assessment was passed and that order is under challenge (Writ Petition No. 862 of 1968).2. The assessing officer gave a notice at or about the time of making a final order of assessment in each of the assessment years in question, viz., 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1966-67, calling upon the petitioners to state as to why the cost of the packing material used in the course of the petitioner's business be not included in the assessable turnover and such cost of packing material not having been included earlier, why steps should not be taken to revise the said assessments. The petitioners objected to the said proposal on the ground; that the cost of packing mater...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee, Madras Vs. Tehmina Dinshaw Tehrani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad187
1. The Official Assignee, Madras, has taken out this application by Judge's summons under S. 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to declare that the site at No. 3/2-A College Road, Nungambakkam, Madras and the building put up thereon are the sole and exclusive property of Dinshaw K. Tehrani, the second respondent insolvent, that the deed of release dated 27-8-1955 executed by the insolvent in favour of his wife, the first respondent, is sham and nominal and was not intended to confer any title upon the first respondent and that the entire property vests in the Official Assignee and is available for the benefit of the creditors. In the alternative, the Official Assignee has prayed that if it is considered necessary the deed of release may be set aside as fraudulent as against the creditors made with the intention of defeating and delaying the creditors. The Official Assignee has also prayed for delivery of possession of the property. The second...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishna Reddiar and ors. Vs. Swamikannu Goundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad129
1. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 192 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif Court. Villupuram. They filed the suit for themselves and on behalf of the other owners of the fishery and vizhal grass rights in the Peria Eri and Ayyaneri in the village of Kankaianur. Villupuram taluk,. belonging to the Government for a declaration of their right to the fishery and the long grass produce in the said tanks and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their said rights. According to the averments in the plaint, the group of persons mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint, are entitled to the fourteen shares in the said fishery and vizhal grass rights in the suit tanks. Though the petitioners own only a fractional share representing among themselves about two shares in the aggregate. the defendants 4 to 7 are co-owners owning less than a moiety of the shares, the suit has been filed on behalf of the general body owning the entire fourteen shares. T...
Tag this Judgment!L. Govindarajulu Chettiar Vs. V.N. Srinivasalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad307
1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was for declaration of the plaintiff-respondent's title to the suit item and for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession of the suit property.2. On 30-6-1958, the respondent-plaintiff purchased the suit property and has been in possession and enjoyment thereof ever since. The suit item is of an extent of 1.52 acres in S. No. 248/2.B, Chikkavasampalayam village. On 12-5-1964, the defendant trespassed into the same and attempted to lay a road 30-ft. wide. On these allegations, the respondent brought the suit for the said reliefs.3. The appellant-defendant contended that originally S. No. 248/2.B, of an extent of 2.06 acres, which was divided into a number of house-sites, belonged to one Subbiah Chetti. He left space for a road for giving access to the house-sites. On 1-5-1945, he sold seven sites to one Guruswami Naicker, specifically mentioning a 30-ft, road on the south of the sites. On ...
Tag this Judgment!C. Hariprasad and anr. and Vs. the Amalgamated Commercial Traders Priv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ330
R. Sadasivam, J.1. Appellants Hariprasad and Godavari Bai Ghuwalewala filed Company Petition No. 87 of 1964 to wind up the first respondent company, Amalgamated Commercial Traders Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as A.C.T. Company). But the company filed C.A. No. 8 of 1965 under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules for an injunction restraining (he appellants from proceeding with the petition for winding up of the Company on the ground that the petition was an abuse of the process of the Court. Venkataraman, J., held that there were no grounds for winding up the company and that the petition by the appellants was an abuse of the process of the Court. He dismissed Company Petition No. 87 of 1964 on the ground that it was an abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petitioners therein have preferred these original side appeals. The A.C.T. Company has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Petitions in these appeals for dismissing the appeals on the ground that no appeal has been f...
Tag this Judgment!P. Govindarajulu Chettiar Vs. V.N. Srinivasalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ385
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was for declaration of the plaintiff-respondent's title to the suit item, and for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession of the suit property.2. On 30th June, 1958, the respondent-plaintiff purchased the suit property and has been in possession and enjoyment thereof ever since. The suit item is of an extent of 1.52 acres in S. No. 248/2-B, Chikkavasampalayam village. On 12th May, 1964 the defendant trespassed into the same and attempted to lay a road 30-feet wide. On these allegations, the respondent brought the suit for the said reliefs.3. The appellant-defendant contended that originally S.No. 248/2-B, of an extent of 2.06 acres, which was divided into a number of house-sites, belonged to one Subbiah Chetti. He left space for a road for giving access to the house-sites. On 1st May, 1945 he sold seven sites to one Guruswami Naicker, specifically mentioning a 30-f...
Tag this Judgment!K. Lakshmi Venkatrama Rao Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ93
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The case of the plaintiff is that his forefathers established a Hanumar temple arid installed the idol Hanumar in it and worshipped it as a family deity. From generation to generation, pooja was conducted by the members of the plaintiff's family at their own cost and expense. The temple had no other property or income. The forefathers of the plaintiff had great faith and fervour in Bajana and hence Bajana was conducted by the temple. The said temple was thus used as a private temple and as a private Bajana Matam. There is no festival conducted in the temple. The people interested in Bajana, used to attend and worship when the plaintiff's forefathers used to do Bajana. Thus, the institution became popular in Madurai city. On account of its popularity, the then Rajah of Sivaganga who was creating endowments in various temples also offered to the temple some paditharam. Similarly from Sarkar kattalai also, some paditharam, was offered....
Tag this Judgment!Vinaitheethal Achi Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad238
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rupees 23,120/- being the principal and interest due on a deposit letter and for costs. The plaintiff was married to the 10th defendant and at the time of the marriage in pursuance of an agreement a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was paid by the 10th defendant as stridhanam to her. This amount was handed over by her to her father M. R. M. Raman Chettiar for investment of the same in P1. RM. ST. Firm, Dabein, Burma, of which her father was also a partner. It was the plaintiff's case that the partners of the firm agreed to receive the amount in deposit and undertook to repay the amount with interest on demand at P. Alagapuri. The partners of the firm were M. R. M. Raman Chettiar, N. S. Chockalingam Chettiar and S. ST. R. M. Raman Chettiar. M. RM. Raman Chettiar the father of the plaintiff died in 1932. After his death a renewal letter Ex. A-3 dated 13-4-1936 was issued by one Natarajan Che...
Tag this Judgment!Mariam Aysha Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1971
Reported in: [1976]104ITR381(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These two writ petitions arising under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, are concerned with the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. One K. A. Mohammed Abubucker owned large extent of lands in Thanjavur District. He settled the said properties on his wife, the petitioner herein, and his two minor children. It is not in dispute that the petitioner on her own and acting for her two minor children filed three independent applications for composition of the taxes under the provisions of the Act. But the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Mannargudi, assessed the petitioner under Section 34 of the Amending Act, 29 of 1958, by clubbing together the lands owned by her as settlee under the settlement deed as well as those secured by the two minor children under the very same deed. The officer based his order on the consent said to have been given by the petitioner's husband to make such a consolidated order. Some time later, the petitioner when she discovered t...
Tag this Judgment!V.N.R. Meenakshi Ammal Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1971
Reported in: [1971]82ITR676(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is admitedly assessable to agricultural income-tax under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Actof 1955. For the year 1965-66, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Act as amended in 1958 and sought for orders of composition as provided therein and for the ultimate compounding of the tax on the basis of the extent of the holding held by her. Her application was on the foot that she held 37.57 acres. The assessing officer, however, was of the view that an extent of 51.59 acres was deliberately omitted from the application for composition and, in that view he added on the same to the extent of holding oft the petitioner and assessed her to tax. Apparently, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer who dealt with the subject and passed the above order on January 30, 1966, was influenced by the earlier decisions taken by the assessing authorities year after year for the assessment years commencing from 1960-61 to 1964-65. In fact, it is n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »