Chennai Court September 1971 Judgments
T.A. Kuppuswami Chettiar and Co., Bhavani Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad478; [1972]30STC473(Mad)
ORDER1. W.P. No. 888 of 1969 concerns itself with the notice issued by the first respondent under the Central Sales Tax Act. W.P. No. 889 of 1969 deals with a similar notice issued under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. A short history of the earlier proceedings which led to the impugned notices has to be stated. The year of assessment with which these two writ petitions are concerned is 1963-64. In September 1964, it appears, that the premises of the petitioner was searched and the Revenue claims the seizure of certain incriminating materials. The account books, the incriminating materials, and the records seized in the course of the search made in 1964 were admittedly kept with the department till August 1966 when a part of such seized books only were returned to the petitioner. I shall advert to this later. Consequent upon such seizure of records and materials, the Revenue by a notice issued under both the Acts as above called upon the petitioner to state his objections regarding c...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Subba Reddiar and anr. Vs. Seetharaman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad421
1. The plaintiffs are the appellants.2. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs are the legitimate children of the second defendant and Punnayammal and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, which were allotted to their share in pursuance of the final decree proceedings in O.S. No. 42 of 1945, on the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession of the properties from the defendants.3. The facts were: The plaintiffs are the children of one Punnayammal. Punnayammal is the wife of the second defendant. The third defendant, though she alleges that she is the lawfully wedded wife of the second defendant, is not the legitimate wife of the second defendant and hence the first defendant is not the legitimate son of second defendant. There was litigation in O.S. No. 42 of 1945, on the file of the trial Court, fo...
Tag this Judgment!Jayalakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. T.V. Ganesa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1971
Reported in: AIR1972Mad357
1. The defendants are the appellants. The respondents brought the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties and for mesne profits. He purchased the properties from Rajamani, the widow of one Narayanaswami, who dies in 1948 leaving his sons Prasanna and Venugopal by his first wife Chinnammal. That lady had predeceased her husband. Narayanaswami also left being him his brother Krishnaswami. The sale deed executed by Rajamani directed the respondent to pay out of the purchase price certain debts of Venugopal which, however, have not up-to-date been paid. Prasanna and Venugopal died in 1953 and 1957. Even during their lifetime Rajamani instituted O.S. 34 of 1953 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge. Tiruchirapalli, for partition of the properties described in the plaint Schedules A to C and for delivery to her of a 1/6th share on the ground that those properties belonged to the joint family consisting of Narayanaswami and his brother Krishnaswami. That ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›