Chennai Court July 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.
S.B. Muthumunia Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1971
Reported in: [1972]85ITR12(Mad)
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. For the assessment year 1958-59, the petitioner was assessed for/agricultural income-tax under Section 17(4), Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The original order is dated April 13, 1961. It appears that proceedings were taken under Section 35 of the Act and the case of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 35 was issued to him by the appropriate authority and such a notice, even if it emanated from the statutory authority, was not served on him or acknowledged by him. The petitioner's further case is that in spite of the laches as above, an enquiry was held under Section 35 of the Act and ultimately the order was revised. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and contended that he was not served with the statutory notice under Section 35 either in the normal way or in the prescribed form and also contended on merits that the attempt to revise the order was not justified. We are not here concer...
Balkishen Goenka Vs. Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer for Sale ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1971
Reported in: [1971]28STC572(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. The petitioner purchased lands bearing survey numbers given in paragraph 2 of his affidavit, situate in Payyankidigadi village, Orathnad Taluk, Thanjavur District. He purchased them from one S.K.R.M. Ranga-nathan Chettiar under a registered deed of sale dated 24th November, 1961. Mr. Ranganathan Chettiar was a dealer liable to pay sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. For the years commencing from 1954-55 and ending with 1956-57, the tax liability on Mr. Chettiar rose to the tune of Rs. 5,681.06. It is claimed that notices of demand were issued as against the defaulting assessee as and when the tax was reckoned for each of the assessment years. Apparently, the dealer, Mr. Chettiar, without disclosing that such was his liability under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, disposed of the above properties for consideration in favour of the petitioner. Soon thereafter, the revenue, taking advantage of Section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales T...
P.S. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer Iii
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC243(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner was the proprietor of a business run under the name and style of 'P. S. Subramaniam Chettiar and Sons' in Mounspuram, Dindigul, Madurai District. For the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63, though orders of assessment were made under the Madras General Sales Tax Act originally in 1962 and 1963 respectively, the said orders were revised by the respondent in the purported exercise of his powers under Section 16 of the Act. The revision was effected on 15th December, 1964, and as a consequence of such a revised assessment the petitioner was called upon to pay an additional tax of Rs. 26,698.30 for the first year and Rs. 41,348.21 for the second year as also penalties in the sum of Rs. 787 for 1961-62 and Rs. 164 for the year 1962-63. The petitioner challenged the power of the respondent to revise the assessments under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He was not successful in the first instance. But on appeal, when the matter was dealt w...
Muniyandi and ors. Vs. R. Muthuswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ372
Ramaswami, J.1. The only point that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether this suit claiming arrears of rent for faslis 1372 to 1374 is barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, in view of the decree in S.C.S. No. 1096 of 1965. That the defendants are the tenants under the plaintiff, is not in dispute. Under Exhibit A-4 dated 19th July, i960, the plaintiff leased the property in favour of the father of the defendants and after the death of the father the defendants had been in possession and enjoyment as tenants of the suit lands. Even after the expiry of the term fixed under Exhibit A-4 the defendants were treated as tenants by holding over and that is also not in dispute in this suit.2. The plaintiff filed S.C. No. 1097 of 1965 against the defendants claiming a sum of Rs. 104 being the value of 52 marakkals of blackgram which is the due in respect of certain cash crops raisad in the suit lands for fasli 1374. Though at the time when the small cause suit ...
P. Mohammed Ali Vs. A.P.R. Marudappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad152
ORDER1. The first defendant is the petitioner. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 735/- due on a hire purchase agreement executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff in which defendants 2 and 3 have also joined as guarantors, undertaking liability jointly and severally along with the first defendant. Hence defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded as parties to the suit. The plaintiff's case is that the first defendant purchased five bicycles on hire purchase agreement from the plaintiff and executed an agreement Ex. A. 1 dated 22-1-1965. The price was fixed at Rs. 1465/-, A sum of Rs. 265/- was paid immediately and the balance was agreed to be paid in 12 instalments of Rs. 100/- each. The first defendant paid Rs. 465/- in two instalments of Rs. 285/- and Rs. 180/- respectively and failed to pay the balance. Hence the suit. The defence of the first defendant is that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is an unregistered corporation, that no agreement was entered into w...
Ramaswamy thevar Vs. Esakki thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad314
1. The suit properties consist of a house and a nanja land of 65 cents in extent. The house originally belonged to one Muthuswami Thevar, the paternal uncle's son of the plaintiff, who died leaving his widow, Madathi and a son Sudalayandi. After the death of Muthuswami, Madathi remarried one Esakki Thevar, the first defendant in the suit in 1932 to whom she begot the other defendants in the suit. After the remarriage of Madathi she purchased 35 cents of nanja lands in the name of Sudalayandi and the remaining 30 cents were purchased by her in her own name. Sudalayandi predeceased his mother. Madathi also died in the year 1960. Under these circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit O. S. No. 351 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ambasamudram for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the same with future mesne profits.2. The suit was resisted by the first defendant and his children by Madathi defendants 2 to 5, contending that...
Pachaimarathan Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1971
Reported in: 1972CriLJ124
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. P. Ws. 1 to 3 have sworn that the petitioner gathered a crowd in the public street by abusing certain per-sons and the police. D. Ws. 1 and 2 also admit that there was a crowd in the street opposite to the house of some persons. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate who inspected the spot has not pre-pared or left any notes of inspection and that as such it is an illegality.Although under Section 539-B, Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate should record a memorandum of the relevant facts if any observed by him at a local inspection and such memorandum should form part of the record of the case, failure of the Magistrate to make the notes of inspection is only an irregularity and where there is ample evidence on record to support the Magistrate's conclusion and there had not been failure of justice on account of this irregularity. the High Court will not interfere in revision.(Vide 1947 MWN 132. Dadekula Dabakka of Kuru...
Sami Pillai Vs. Ramulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad4; (1971)2MLJ206
1. The revision petitioner, who was the first defendant in the court below, granted a usufructuary mortgage in respect of his properties for Rs. 10,000/-in favour of the plaintiff-first respondent on 17-7-1963. At the time of the mortgage, he owed two loans to the Government upon the security of the lands which he mortgaged to the plaintiff. He, therefore, expressly undertook in the deed of mortgage to discharge those loans from and out of his properties other than those covered by the mortgage dated 17-7-1963. The mortgagee entered possession of the hypotheca and leased out the lands to one Manickam for cultivation. The crops raised by Manickam were attached by the Government, because the petitioner defaulted to pay an instalment due under the Government loan. Consequently, the plaintiff paid Rs. 434 to the Government, and had to attachment lifted. It was to recover this amount from the mortgagor that he instituted a suit on the small cause side of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruvan...
T.V. Velayudhan Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1971
Reported in: (1971)2MLJ333
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The petitioner, who was appointed as an Executive Officer, under the Madras Hindu Reglious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), served as an Executive Officer in Thanjavur in the year 1966 and on transfer he served in Sri Arasaba Vimohana Perumal Temple and Sri Prahmasira Kadeeswaraswami Temple, Kandiyur, Thanjavur Taluk from June, 1969 to August, 1969. Subsequently, he was transferred to Tiruchirapalli district, where he was serving as Executive Officer in Sri Madanagopalaswami Temple, etc., Perambalur. The Assistant Commissioner, Kumbakonam, framed certain charge against the petitioner with regard to his work as Executive Officer at Thanjavur and placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry by order dated 14th February, 1970. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Commissioner, who, by order dated 24th March, 1970, dismissed the revision. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges...
The Management of Navamani and Co. Vs. the Presiding Officer, Labour C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-01-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ453
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The management of Navamani and Company, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore, has filed this Writ Petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, first respondent, in I.D. No. 8 of 1965. The Secretary, Coimbatore District General Engineering and Mechanical Workers' Union, Coimbatore, respresents the workmen (the second respondent) of the petitioner-management. With regard to a dispute over the quantum of bonus payable for 1962-63 and 1963-64, an agreement between the management and the workers was arrived 2X in November, 1963. Under that agreement, it was provided that for 1962-63 bonus of two months' wages should be paid and that for the year 1963-64 one month's wages as bonus would be paid. The agreement provided other conditions which need not be adverted to. In spite of the settlement, the workers went on strike in September, 1964 claiming four months', wages as bonus for 1963-64, which Was followed by a s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›