Chennai Court January 1972 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.
Asbestos Cement Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC251(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. As the points involved in both the above cases are the same, they are dealt with together.2. The petitioners in both the cases are the same and they challenge the assessments made on them for the years 1965-66 and 1966-67 so far as they related to a turnover of Rs. 1,85,324.83 for the year 1965-66 and Rs. 1,46,512.96 for the year 1966-67. They contend that the transactions covered by the turnovers disputed in these cases are not inter-State sales and that they are not liable to be taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The transactions in question in both the years have been treated as inter-State sales by the assessing authority as well as by the appellate authority. On appeals by the assessees to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the appellate authority, with a direction to exclude such of those transactions in respect of which actual deliveries had been completed by the assessees' factory in Madras State to the nominees of the ...
Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mrs. Ida L. Chambers (Decd.) (Administr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: [1972]85ITR637(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. One G. A. Chambers died on November 16, 1937, leaving a will dated December 18, 1930, and a codicil dated May 28, 1931. Under the said will the testator devised and bequeathed all his real and personal properties to three trustees, one of whom was the assessee, with a direction to pay to the assessee during her lifetime the income from his estate subject to the condition that she should maintain the testator's minor son by name Roy Edwin Medcalfe Chambers, and after her death, to hold the properties in trust for the benefit of his son until the latter attained the age of 25 and to make over the estate to the minor son on his attaining the said age for his absolute benefit. The will also provided that, in the event of the minor son predeceasing the assessee, the estate has to be distributed in the particular manner specified therein.2. After the death of the testator the trustee entered upon the trust and carried on the testator's business which had been carried on unde...
Namadevan Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: 1972CriLJ1414
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. Namadevan the petitioner herein, was the driver of the Arkonam Passenger, viz. Train No. 301, on the night of 13th of January, 1968. This train left the Madras Central Station at 18-10 hours. Earlier to it, the Mangalore Mail viz., Train No. 1 had left the Station. The train driven by this petitioner dashed against the rear portion of the Mangalore Mail at a point 227 metres east of the signal ABU 13. One Kader Meeran who was in the rear bogie of the Mangalore Mail, sustained injuries and later succumbed to them. Thirty other persons who were in the compartment also sustained injuries, grievous and simple. The petitioner was tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poonamallee for offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 101 of the Indian Railways Act.Observing that the petitioner was both rash and negligent, the learned Magistrate convicted him under all the Sections. He sentenced him under Section 304-A, I.P.C. to s...
The Corporation of Madras, by Its Executive Authority, the Commissione ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1972
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ8
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. These two suits arise out of a contract between the Corporation of Madras, who is the plaintiff in C.S. No. 48 of 1967 and a partnership firm by name Fomra Brothers, who is the defendant in that suit, for the supply of certain types of high tension power cables by the firm to the Corporation. C.S. No. 48 of 1967 has been filed by the Corporation of Madras for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,40,625 with subsequent interest towards damages on the ground that the defendant committed breach of contract in its failure to supply the power cables contracted for and that the Corporation was forced to make purchases from open market in which they had to pay more than the price settled between the parties in respect of the same type of cables. The other suit namely, C.S. No. 33 of 1968 is one filed by the above said partnership firm, namely, Fomra Brothers against the Corporation of Madras for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,432.98 with interest of Rs. 1,297.02 totalling Rs. ...
Pandurangan and anr. Vs. Dasu Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad107
1. The auction purchaser is the first appellant. The decree holder is the second appellant. The judgment debtor, respondent herein, filed an application in E. A. 669 of 1969 under Order XXI. Rule 90 Civil P. C. to set aside the Court auction sale held on 25-6-1969. It was alleged in that application that the property worth about Rs. 7,000/- has been knocked down for Rs. 701/-, that no proper advertisement had been made before the property was brought to sale, that fraud was played upon the Court in order to make the property be knocked down for a low price and that there was no need to furnish security to set aside the sale. The decree-holder, second appellant herein, filed a counter stating that there were no merits in the application and that the same had been filed with a view to protract the execution proceedings and delay the realization of the decree amount. E. A. 669 of 1969 was heard by the District Munsif, Chingleput, who held that the proclamation of sale and the sale were in...
P. Subramaniam Vs. S. Pachamuthu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad366
ORDER1. The question that arises in this petition is whether a person who had been a voter in the roll of panchayat and had been elected as the President of the Panchayat could be disqualified by the election court on the ground that on the date of nomination he had not attained the age of 21. So far as the fact whether the petitioner has attained the age of 21 on the date of nomination, there is now no dispute for the findings of the lower court that the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 cannot be seriously disputed. Therefore the question arises whether on the finding that the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 years on the date of nomination and whether after his being elected as the President, he could be disqualified by the Election Court.2. The preparation of the electoral roll for the panchayat is by incorporating the electoral roll for the assembly constituency, so far as the village, is concerned.3. Article 326 of the Constitution provides that 'the elections to...
Thirumayee Ammal Vs. Palaniappa Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad7
ORDER1. The decree-holder in O. S. No. 370 of 1969 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, has filed this civil revision petition on being aggrieved that the learned District Munsif has allowed the application filed by the respondent who is a decree-holder in O. S. 330 of 1970 on the file of the same District Munsif Court for rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The petitioner herein obtained a money decree in O. S. No. 370 of 1969 on 18-8-1969 and brought the property of the judgment-debtor for sale in execution and purchased the same on 15-6-1970 after having obtained leave from the executing court to bid and set off. The respondent obtained a money decree in his suit O. S. 330 of 1970 on 29-6-1970 after the sale had been concluded in favour of the petitioner herein but before confirmation.3. The only question for consideration in this petition is whether the respondent decree-holder in O. S. 330 of 1970 who had obtained a decree on 29-6-197...
MoinuddIn Khan Sahib Vs. Rukmani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Mad263
ORDER1. The tenant has preferred this revision petition against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the first appellate authority on the ground that the respondent bona fide required the premises for her own occupation.2. The respondent requires the premises for residential purposes. It is found that the premises consist of two rooms, one occupied by the petitioner for residential purpose and the other for rolling beedies. The Rent Controller has found that the house was predominantly let out for residential purpose. But the first appellate authority has found that it was let out partly for residential and partly for beedi rolling purposes.3. In view of the Full Bench decision of this court in Dakshinamurthi v. Thulji Bai, : AIR1952Mad413 (FB)) it has been held that where the court finds the letting to be equally for residential and non-residential purposes and not mainly or substantially for the one or the other kind of purpose, the application by the lan...
In Re: Gajendran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ112
Somasundaram, J.1. 60 bags of rice were (transported by the petitioner in lorry MDH 2427 from Red Hills, a notified area, to Arambakkam, a village in another notified area, on the morning of 27.9.1968. P. W. 1. the Special Tahsildar. Civil Supplies, stopped this lorry at Janapam Chatram. a village within Arambakkam limits. The petitioner did not have any valid permit for 31 bags. He was prosecuted under Section 3(1) of the Madras Paddy and Rice Movement Control Order. 1968, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. When questioned in Court, the petitioner said that when he was keeping the lorry at a petrol bunk at Janapan Chatram the Taluk Supply Officer came and took him and the lorry to the Police Station. The District Magistrate. Chingleput. who tried him, convicted and sentenced him, for this transport without permit, to pay a fine of Rupees 100/-. He further ordered the confiscation of the 31 bags which were not covered by any permit. The petitioner contends that he ha...
Rajaratnam and anr. Vs. L. Noronha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Mad332
ORDER1. The petitioners in H. R. C. No. 3973 of 1968 are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. They filed H.R.C. No. 3973 of 1968 under Section 10(3)(a)(1) of Madras Act 18 of 1960 in the court of Small Causes, Madras, for an order of eviction against the respondent from premises No. 9-B Baraca Road, Kilpauk, Madras 10, on the ground that they require the building for their own use. The case of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is the mother and she settled the suit property on the second petitioner under a settlement deed, Ex. 1, dated 11-2-1965 but retained the right to receive the rents and profits during her lifetime, that the second petitioner married on 25-9-1968 a doctor, she being herself a medical practitioner and that the second petitioner is anxious to have separate establishment of her own with her husband and that they both requested the respondent to vacate and deliver vacant possession and the respondent not having complied with their request, the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »