Chennai Court November 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.
Mahboob Bi Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1972
Reported in: [1974]93ITR127(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The petitioner's late husband, one T. M. Abdul Rahim, was in arrears of income-tax, interest thereon and penalty aggregating to Rs. 4,37,868.29. For recovering the said amount, recovery proceedings were initiated by the income-tax department. A certificate was issued by the Income-tax Officer to the Tax Recovery Officer under Section 222 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on March 27, 1968, for the recovery of the said amount. In pursuance of the said certificate, the Tax Recovery Officer initiated recovery proceedings. He issued a notice of demand to the defaulter, the said T. M. Abdul Rahim, for the entire arrears under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, on May 10, 1968. But, as the defaulter had died even on April 17, 1968, the said notice of demand was returned with the endorsement that the assessee was dead. Inspite of this return, the Tax Recovery Officer issued a notice of attachment dated December 26, 1968, in Form No. I.T.C.P. 16 addressed in...
Seth Sundardas Harbhagwandas and ors. Vs. the Indian Bank Ltd., a Bank ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ429
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. In all these petitions, the petitioner is the same which is a registered firm of bankers. The facts are similar in all these petitions and the question that arises for determination is also the same. A hundi was executed by a merchant in favour of one or other of the Banks who are respondents in these petitions. The hundi was discounted by the petitioner-2nd defendant. When the hundi became payable, neither the executant of the hundi nor the petitioner paid the amount due to the concerned Bank?. The banks filed suits against the maker of the hundi as well as the petitioner which discounted the hundi. The petitioner filed petitions for impleading certain respondents as defendants to the suit, on the ground that they had executed letters of guarantee under taking to be liable regarding the promissory notes and other transactions that may be entered into by the petitioner. The Courts below dismissed the petitions declining to implead the respondents as defendants to th...
M. Gomathi Vs. S. Natarajan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad247; (1973)1MLJ246
ORDER1. This petition is filed by the wife against the order of the Second Additional City Civil Judge on appeal from the order passed by the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, holding that the trial Court should first decide the question of jurisdiction before it could pass any order on an interlocutory application for payment of interim maintenance.2. The wife filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for judicial separation on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Pending disposal of the petition the wife also prayed for interim maintenance which was ordered. The husband submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction as the case did not fall under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act in that the marriage was neither solemnized nor the husband and wife reside or last resided together within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. The lower appellate Court found that this question as to jurisdiction will have to be tried first and before the question is tried and the Court is ...
The Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Padma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ276
S. Maharajan, J.1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras, awarding Rs. 6,000 as compensation to the mother of one Dhandapani, who was killed in a motor accident on 15th April, 1966. Dhandapani, who was aged 14 years and was studying in the 9th standard in the Hindu High School, Triplicane, was going in a cycle along the Mount Road near Elphinstone Theatre, while he was knocked down by car MSP 6788. As a result of the accident the victim sustained fractures and multiple injuries and died a little later. The driver of the car was one Ambalal who claimed to be owner of the car and who denied that he had driven it in. a rash or negligent manner, and who pleaded that the accident was due to sudden and unanticipated failure of the brakes of the car. The Vanguard Insurance Co., with which the car had been insured, pleaded that as the assured had sold his car on 12th April, 1965 and had no insurable interest in the car on the date o...
Pioneer Match Works and anr. Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1972
Reported in: [1974]34STC266(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J. 1. It is agreed that the facts in W. P. No. 74 of 1.970 may be noticed. The petitioner is a partnership-firm carrying on business in matches. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 (the former the subject-matter of W. P. No. 71 of 1970 and the latter the subject-matter of W. P. No. 76 of 1970), the petitioner paid the sums of Rs. 1,91,400 and Rs. 8,64,637.50 as and by way of excise duty to the Central Government. The petitioner claimed in its returns under the Central Sales Tax Act a deduction of the aforesaid amounts in the taxable turnover on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment in Yaddalam's case [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231. The petitioner here relied upon another decision of the Supreme Court commonly known as Pothan Joseph's case [1970] 25 S.T.C. 147 that if excise duty was deductible under the local sales tax law for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable turnover, then such duty was deductible for arriving at the taxable turnover under the Central sal...
Ponnuswami Reddiar Vs. Lalitha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad121
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of the order passed in I.A. 258 of 1971 in O.S. 81 of 1964 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli. The first respondent herein filed that application under Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151, Civil P.C. praying to implead the petitioner herein as a party defendant in the suit. It is necessary to narrate the events that preceded the filing of the application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C. by the first respondent herein.2. Lalitha, the first respondent herein filed the suit O.S. 81 of 1964 against respondents 2 and 3 for rendition of accounts of the value of all the jewels which the first respondent had entrusted with them. The suit was decreed on 24-3-1966 directing rendition of accounts by the second and third respondents to the first respondent. On appeal by respondents 2 and 3 of the District Court Tiruchirapalli in A.S. 427 of 1966, the District Judge found that the entrustment of the jewels listed in Ex. A.17, with respondents 2 and...
A. Venkatasami Naidu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad124
ORDER1. The State of Tamil Nadu, through the State representative (Land Reforms), the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Madurai 2 (the respondent herein) issued a notice dated 4-4-1970 under Section 9(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Act LVIII of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing the petitioner herein to show cause why he should not hand over 4.25 standard acres from out of his private trust lands. According to the respondent, the petitioner is having a private trust, that the private trust is entitled to hold only 30 standard acres and that since he is owning 34.25 standard acres, he has to declare an extent of 4.25 standard acres as surplus holding. The petitioner alleged before the respondent that the trust is exempted from the operation of the act and that he would produce necessary documents and sought extension of time to file his objections to the notice under Section 9(2)(b). In spite of several opportunities give...
A. Venkataswami Naidu Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Through the State Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ410
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, through the State Representative (Land Reforms), the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms Madurai-2 (the respondent herein), issued a notice, dated 4th April, 1970 under Section 9 (2) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land Act, (LVIII of 1961) hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing the petitioner herein to show cause why he should not hand over 4.25 standard acres from out of his private trust lands. According to the respondent, the petitioner is having a private trust, that the private trust is entitled to hold only 30 standard acres and that since he is owning 34.25 Standard acres, he has to declare an extent of 4.25 standard acres as surplus holding. The petitioner alleged before the respondent that the trust is exempted from the operation of the Act and that he would produce necessary documents and sought extension of time to file his objections to the notice under Section 9 (2) (b). In spite of se...
Dr. H.T. Veera Reddi Vs. Smt. Kistamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ300
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. C.M.A. No. 348 of 1972 is against I.A. No. 2209 of 1971, on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, and C.R.P. No. 751 of 1972 is against I.A. No. 11534 of 1971, on the file of the same Court. Both the above I.As. were filed in O.P. No. 48 of 1971. O.P : No. 48 of 1971 now pending before the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, is a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act XXV of 1955. It was filed by the appellant, Dr. H.T. Veera Reddi, for getting the society of his Wife Kistamma, the respondent, and her daughter by name Babarethinamma.2. There is a long history behind between the parties prior to the filing of O.P. N0.48 of 1971. Their marriage took place as early as 1943 and according to Kistamma, a daughter was born to them on 23rd December, 1958. Dr. H.T. Veera Reddi filed O.P. No. 63 of 1960 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, for divorce, alleging adultery and desertion on the part of...
V.S. Kumaraswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad126
Veeraswami, C.J.1. There is little substance in these appeals. In each one of them, a piece of land has been requisitioned in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Madras Requisitioning and acquisition of Immovable Property Act (Madras Act 42 of 1956). The requisitioning was for the purpose of providing a seed farm, a public purpose. The validity of the requisitioning was unsuccessfully canvassed before Venkatadri, J. It is said that Section 8(3)(b), as held by the Bombay High Court in Kamala Bai v. T. B. Desai, : AIR1966Bom36 is illegal. But that provision applies only to acquisition and not to requisition. We are told, next, that Section 8(1)(e) read with sub-section (2) clause (b) is bad, inasmuch as principles for determination of compensation have not been laid down. This contention, again, has no substance. Section 8 itself is headed as principles and method of determining compensation. Sub-section (1) directs that, in a case of requisitioning of property, compensation sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »