Chennai Court August 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.
Saravanabhava Vs. Sellammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ49
Raghavan, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is for declaration of title and for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment. The case of the plaintiff is that one Peramiah Gounder, the father of the defendants 1 to 3 and the maternal grandfather of the 4th defendant, was the owner of the suit property and also of other property, and that he executed his last will on 19th September, 1960, in respect of those properties. Under the will the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property and the defendants are entitled to the other property. The plaintiff is the grandson of the elder brother of Peramiah Gounder. The 4th defendant is the plaintiff's wife and the third defendant's daughter. Peramiah Gounder was murdered on 11th January, 1964, and the plaintiff was implicated in the said murder. The plaintiff has filed the present suit by his father and power of attorney agent for the reliefs mentioned above.2. The first defenda...
S. Velu Palandar Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1971
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ323
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a contractor in the Forest Department, Tiruchirapalli. His usual course of business is to purchase casuarina poles from forest coupe and it is claimed that he sells such poles collected from the coupe as timber without further processing them into casuarina bits. Timber as such is liable to1 sales tax only at a single point, according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner says that when he purchases the goods in auction the sales tax payable is remitted to the Forest Department and his case, therefore, is that his further dealings in timber cannot attract tax.2. For the year 1961-62, the petitioner purchased such casuarina poles and paid sales tax for the relative sale amount to the Forest Department and he was of the view that the entire transaction was closed by June, 1961. Nearly six years later, the respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner. not having been assessed to tax, was called u...
S. Velu Palandar Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thanjavur Ii.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1971
Reported in: [1972]83ITR683(Mad)
ORDERThe petitioner is a contractor in the Forest Department. Tiruchirapalli. His usual course of business is to purchase causarina poles from forest coupe, and it is claimed that he sells such poles collected from the coupe as timber without further processing them into casuarina bits. Timber as such is liable to sales tax only at a single point, according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner says that when he purchases the goods in auction the sales tax payable is remitted to the forest department and his case, therefore, is that his further dealings in timber cannot attract tax.For the year 1961-62, the petitioner purchased such causarina poles and paid sales tax for the relative sale amount to the forest department and he was of the view that the entire transaction was closed by June, 1961. Nearly six years later, the respondent issued a notice stating that the petitioner not having filed a return of his dealings and not having been assessed to ...
The Southern India Education Trust, Madras Vs. M.S. Jagadambal Overruled
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad162
Ramanujam, J.1. This appeal by the fifth defendant is directed against the decision of Kailasam, J., in C. S. No. 52 of 1960, upholding the plaintiff's title to the suit lands and directing delivery of possession of the same by the defendants. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit, and her case was that her husband Nagappa Naicker had purchased the suit lands measuring about 9 grounds by a registered sale deed dated May 24, 1929 from one Manicka Naicker and his sons, that he was in possession and enjoyment of the same during his lifetime, that after his death on January 12, 1942 she as the executor appointed under his will dated May 14, 1941 and as a life-estate holder was in possession and enjoyment of the same till 1954 when the first defendant trespassed into the suit properties, demolished a fence existing on the land and occupied the same asserting title under a document of exchange dated 2-2-1954 executed by the fifth defendant, the Southern India Education Tru...
Pechiammal Vs. Veerappa thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad296
1. Does the coparcennary property in the hands of the last male-holder fall within the scope of the Hindu Law of Inheritance Amendment Act (Central Act II of 1929) is the question that arises for determination in these two second appeals.2. The facts as admitted and found by the courts below and which are not challenged before me are as follows: One A Kandaswami was the original owner of the properties which are the subject matter of these two second appeals. His wife was one Rangammal. The said Kandaswami died in the year 1912 leaving behind him his widow Rangammal and five children, namely, two sons by name K. Arunachalam and K. Kandaswami and three daughters Palaniammal, Augnammal and Pachiammal. The son K. Arunachalam died somewhere about 36 years ago unmarried. His brother K. Kandaswami also died within a few months thereafter unmarried. Rangammal herself died in 1953 leaving behind the three daughters mentioned above. One of her daughters, namely, Pachiammal has three sons by nam...
K. Ambujammal Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kothavalchavadi Divis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: [1971]29STC368(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. This writ petition raises a somewhat interesting question of law. The power of attorney agent of the petitioner is the son-in-law of one Seetharama Chettiar, who was a dealer within the meaning of the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After the death of Seetharama Chettiar, his widow, the petitioner herein, was representing his affairs and she was in turn being represented by her son-in-law as her power of attorney agent. The late Seetharama Chettiar closed down his business, and for the assessment year 1963-64, he was assessed to sales tax. Consequent upon the said assessment, the notice of demand was served on the widow calling upon her to pay a sum of Rs. 306.38 as the balance due under the said assessment order. It appears that the petitioner was aggrieved by the notice of demand as well as the original order of assessment, and an appeal questioning the propriety of the original order was filed on ...
Sivaji Films Private Limited Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC66(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner, an incorporated company under the Companies Act obtained certain licences under the Export Promotion Scheme of the Government of India for the import of raw stock of films and other materials and for this purpose they obtained licences from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The intention behind the import was that they should use such imported films themselves in the course of their film production. While issuing the licence, the Controller of Imports imposed several restrictions, one amongst which is that the release of the stock so imported to a stranger ought not to be made unless otherwise ordered by the licensing authority. It is practically conceded that the imported raw stock is controlled by the Government both in the manner of import and then at the stage of consumption by way of release orders issued for the purpose by the appropriate authority. In fact, the petitioner-company was to furnish periodical reports of con...
The Madras Type Foundry Vs. the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: [1973]30STC143(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, a short history of the prior litigation under which the petitioner secured the sole proprietorship of the Madras Type Foundry, whose dealings are in question before me, may be traced. In application No. 740/66 in O. P. No. 278/31, this court held that the Madras Type Foundry shall become the sole and absolute property of the petitioner as and from 11th May, 1965. Ramamurti, J., observed:The result is that Ambiganathan has become solely and absolutely entitled to all the assets of the Madras Type Foundry, stock-in-trade, etc., as on 11th May, 1965...Ambiganathan shall therefore take over the Madras Type Foundry, its assets, stock-in-trade, cash, bank deposits and bank accounts and everything pertaining to the foundry as the sole proprietor thereof and he shall be entitled to operate upon the bank accounts in his own right and deal with the assets of the Madras Type Foundry as t...
E.J. Madhava Mudaliar Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ108
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The Office of the Headman, Injambakkam Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, fell vacant consequent on the death of the permanent incumbent. The petitioner was appointed on 1st February, 1967 as a temporary headman for the said village. To fill up the vacancy on a long term temporary basis, the Tahsildar of Kancheepuram invited applications. The petitioner and the fourth respondent applied for the post. On a consideration of the merits of the claims of the petitioner and the fourth respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer appointed the fourth respondent. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer. That appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner preferred a second appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board having rejected the appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a Writ of certiorari to quash the said proceedings.2. Mr. Sivamani, appearing for the petitioner put forward two main cont...
P.i. Kurian Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Deput ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1971
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ477
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. Kannappan and Dhanapal, respondents 2 and 3, are the owners of No. 55, Rangasayee Naidu Street, Perambur, Madras. The building consists of several portions. The owners are in occupation of a portion for their residential use and of another small portion for their business as newspaper agents. There are eight other non-residential portions in the occupation of private tenants. One of these portions is in the occupation of the petitioner, Kurian, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45 where he is conducting his bakery and show-room. There have been litigations between the petitioner on the one hand and respondents 2 and 3 on the other with regard to the tenancy of the petitioner. The landlords not being able to get the petitioner evicted through the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), they approached the State Government an the year 1967 seeking exemption of the building under Section 29 of the Act....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›