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.
Namachivaya Mudaliar and anr. Vs. P.J.A. Manickavelu and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Mad292
ORDER1. The validity of the order of arrest is challenged by the judgment-debtor. The order is one word one: 'Arrest'. The contention is that under Section 51, C. P. Code, before an order of arrest and detention in prison is made the Court should give an opportunity to the judgment-debtor for showing cause as to why he should not be committed to prison, and the Court should, for reasons recorded in writing, be satisfied on any of the requirements prescribed in clause a, b or c of the proviso. Rules 37 and 40 of Order XXI C. P. Code should also be referred to in this connection. Order XXI, Rule 37(1) provides that where an application is for arrest and detention in civil prison of a judgment-debtor who is liable to be arrested, the Court shall, instead of issuing a warrant for his arrest, issue a notice calling upon him to appear before the Court on a day to be specified in the notice and show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison. The proviso states that such notice shal...
A. Gopalakrishna Naidu Vs. the District Revenue Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad186
Ramanujam, J. 1. An extent of 41.97 acres in Survey Nos. 272, 280, 286, 287, 288, 294, 295, 299, 300, 302 and 306 to 308 in Putur village was originally requisitioned under the Madras Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1956, for establishing a State Seed Farm, by a notification dated 31-10-1962. The Lands were taken possession of by the State on 24-1-1963. Subsequently the State acquired the lands under the provisions of the said Act. While awarding compensation authority, the District Revenue Officer, Saidapet, grouped the lands under three heads : (1) wet lands 4.55 acres. (2) Manavari lands 14.01 acres and (3) dry lands 23.41 acres. Out of the wet lands 7 acres were treated as vacant site with certain structures and the rest 4.48 acres were valued at Rs. 35 per cent based on the basis of a sale deed Ex. B.3 dated 27-8-1962 relating to S. No. 195/2. As regards Manavari lands, out of the extent of 14.01 acres the competent authority found that actually 13.57 acres ...
A. Gopalakrishna Naidu Vs. the District Revenue Officer and Competent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ290
G. Ramanujam, J.1. An extent of 41.97 acres in survey Nos. 272, 280, 286, 287, 288, 294, 295, 299, 300, 302 and 306 to 308 in Putlur village was originally requisitioned under the Madras Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1956, for establishing a State Seed Farm, by a notification dated 31st October, 1962. The lands were taken possession of by the State on 24th January, 1963. Subsequently the State acquired the lands under the provisions of the said Act, While awarding compensation for the lands acquired the competent authority, the District Revenue Officer, Saidapet, grouped the lands under three heads : (1) wet lands 4.55 acres, (2) nanavari lands 14.01 acres and (3) dry lands 23.41 acres. Out of the wet lands 7 cents were treated as vacant site with certain structures, and the rest 4.48 acres were valued at Rs. 35 per cent, based on the basis of a sale deed Exhibit B-3 dated 27th August, 1962, relating to survey No. 195/2. As regards manavari lands, out of the...
Palaniappa Pandaram Vs. the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charit ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ276
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner. He has filed a suit O.S. No. 115 of 1970 to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in M.P. No. 44 of 1969 wherein the petitioner herein has been suspended on four charges framed against him. It is unnecessary for me to elaborately discuss the charges and the explanation offered by the petitioner herein. No doubt, the petitioner was the hereditary trustee, according to him. from 1945 onwards. In 1969, the Assistant Commissioner appointed three additional non-hereditary trustees to act along with the petitioner herein. Subsequent to this appointment, the charges were framed against the petitioner and specific charges were given to the petitioner. These charges were framed on 15th November, 1969. On these charges, the Deputy Commissioner suspended him. Against these charges, the petitioner herein filed a revision before the Commissioner and the same was dismissed. Against this dismissal of the revision by the Commi...
A.N.K. Rajamani Ammal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1972
Reported in: [1972]84ITR790(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. One A. N. Kandaswami Pillai died on October 19, 1957. His widow, the applicant herein, as the accountable person under the Act filed a return under Section 7(1) disclosing the value of the coparcenary interest of the deceased as Rs. 24,948. This return was submitted on the basis that the deceased was the karta of a Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his four sons and that the properties belonged to the joint family. The deceased was assessed to income-tax in the status of a ' Hindu undivided family ' from the year 1946-47. Income-tax assessments for the years 1955-56 to 1957-58 were made in the status of an ' individual' in spite of the objection taken by the deceased. After his death, the assessment for the year 1958-59 was again made as in the status of a Hindu undivided family.2. The deceased published a statement in two of the Tamil dailies on the 7th and 8th May, 1957, to the effec...
The National Fire Works Factory and ors. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Off ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC132(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of petitions, a simple question arises. It is enough to notice the facts in W.P. No. 3419 of 1969. The petitioners are manufacturers and dealers in fireworks. Their grievance is that for the years 1963-64 to 1967-68, they were excessively assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, as at the time of assessment, they were unable to produce the 'C' forms and the higher rate of tax was invoked in the matter of their assessable turnover. The petitioners, in the main affidavit, which is the pattern adopted in all cases, accept the assessments. But their main grievance is that the higher rate of tax ought not to have been collected for the non-production of the 'C' forms. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this court in Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1968] 22 S.T.C. 436. In the instant case, the petitioners are not aggrieved against the order of assessment, nor is it their contention that they ever did produce the 'C' forms ...
K. Ramulu Vs. the Director of Tamil Nadu Raffle, Government Estate and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ239
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner purchased a ticket in the Raffle conducted by the State Government of Madras. The State Raffle Scheme was promulgated by the State with a view to harnessing, in an increased measure, the savings of the people for financing developmental programmes. The purport and purpose of the State Raffle Scheme was published in the Fort St. George Gazette Extraordinary, dated 17th Jiily; 1968. Under the said project and in order to set guidelines which ought to govern the implementation of the State Raffle Scheme, the Madras State Raffle Rules, 1968, were drawn up. The Director of State Raffle, Madras, was to administer the State Raffle Scheme. In one of such Schemes the petitioner purchased a ticket paying a sum of Re. r for the draw which was held on 25th November, 1969. In the said draw, the ticket of the petitioner which bore the number 748623 won a prize of Rs. 1,000 The petitioner chose the agency of the 3rd respondent, The Union00 Bank of India, Guntur...
K. V. Krishna Iyer Vs. the President, Panchayat Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1972
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ218
ORDERM. M. Ismail, J.1. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem, on 30th June, 1967 passed an order allowing a ryotwari patta to the petitioner herein in respect of S. No. 64/4 pro-measuring 0.69 acre in Meyyanur village in Salem taluk and district. Against this order, the first respondent herein preferred a revision petition to the Settlement Officer, party No. III, Madras-7, on 16th September, 1967. The Settlement Officer found, after deducting the time taken for obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, that the revision petition was filed after 43 days from the date of the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. Since the prescribed period of limitation was only 30 days and. the revision petition was filed after a delay of 13 days, he stated that the delay had not been properly explained and, therefore, by an order dated 10th October, 1967 rejected the revision petition in litnine. Against this order, the first respondent herein preferred a r...
Smt. V. Kanakammal Proprietrix, Lakshmi Saraswathi Bus Service Vs. Thi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)1MLJ344
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition comes up on conversion of the original Writ Petition No. 1044 of 1971. The respondent applied for a variation of his route from Vellore to Pallikonda, so as to extend the same from Pallikonda to Gudiyatham. The Regional Transport Authority, who dealt with this application, summarily dismissed the same on the ground that the respondent was not entitiled to such an extension as the length of the sector covered after the variation was not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent took up the matter in appeal, and before the appellate authority, it appears to me, the parties had made representations not only as regards the maintainability of the application, but also on the merits. This I say because the appellate authority went into the matter not only on the question whether the extension was plausible under the Act, but also on the ground whether the extension was publicly needed. Ultimately the appellate authorit...
P. Muthalagu Vs. the Collector of Tiruchirapalli and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ42
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner and the third respondent applied for the issue of no-objection certificate to conduct a touring cinema in Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli district. It is common ground that the petitioner's application was earlier and the third respondent's application was later. If other circumstances were equal, the petitioner ought to have been preferred as he in point of time was the earlier applicant and as the site chosen by the third respondent, in relation to the petitioner's site, was within the prohibited distance. But the petitioner's application was rejected by the Collector in the first instance on the ground that as a past Manager of a Touring Cinema which belonged to his brother-in-Law, the petitioner's conduct disclosed that in relation to the payment of entertainment tax there was an attempted evasion since the petitioner encouraged the sale of duplicate tickets during the shows conducted at the theatre belonging to his brother-in-Law. The ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›