Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad476; (1973)2MLJ94
ORDER1. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 1430 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem, are the petitioners. The revision petition is directed against an order of the District Munsif, Salem, in I. A. No. 1235 of 1971, refusing to stay the trial of O. S. No. 1430 of 1968 pending in his Court pending disposal of A. S. No. 143 of 1971 on the file of the District Court of Salem. The petitioners' case is that they filed previously O. S. No. 1460 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif Court of Salem, for the issue of a mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the user of the scavenging lane in which the defendant had put up a latrine and for other relief's. That suit was dismissed and A. S. 143 of 1971 on the file of the District Court, Salem is the appeal against the said judgment and decree. During the pendency of the above appeal the same plaintiff filed O. S. No. 1430 of 1968 for damages for diverting the sullage water flowing from the latrine into the scavenging la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]96ITR289(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The following question has been referred under Section 64(1) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter called ' the Act').'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the properties comprised in the Khajaminan Wakf cannot be included in the dutiable estate under Section 12 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ?'2. One N.M. Khajamian Rowther died on November 9, 1954. Prior to his death he executed on May 29, 1945, a wakfnama in respect of certain properties. The four sons and four daughters of the wakif were nominated as mutawallis of the trust properties and the properties themselves were transferred in the name of Khajamian Wakf Estate. The wakfnama provided for the utilisation of the income of the trust properties, firstly, for payment of taxes and other expenses, secondly, for meeting the expenses of certain charitable and religious objects mentioned in Schedule A to the wakfnama, thirdly, for setting asi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]34STC277(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. A common question of law is involved in all the above cases and, therefore, they are disposed of together by a common judgment.2. As the facts in all these cases are substantially the same, it is sufficient to set out the facts in T. C. No. 197 of 1970. The petitioner in this case is a partnership-firm carrying on business in matches. For the assessment year 1964-65, it had paid a sum of Rs. 1,91,400 as and by way of excise duty to the Central Government on the matches manufactured and sold during that year. The petitioner had claimed a deduction of the aforesaid amount in its returns filed under the Central Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called as the Central Act, on the ground that excise duty paid to the Central Government is an allowable deduction under Rule 6(f) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The assessing authority rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction on the ground that Section 9(3) of the Central Act as it stood originally only attracted the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1973CriLJ1566
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a revision against the discharge of the accused under Section 253 (1), Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Usilampatti, in C.C. No. 30 of 1971 on his file. The case was taken on file on the complaint of the Food Inspector of Periyakulam Municipality under Sections 7 and 16 (1) read with Section 2 (ix) (j) and Rule 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The case is that P. W. 1, the Food Inspector, went to the eatables shop of the accused on 30-10-1970 and purchased 600 grams of the sweet called Burfi for a sum of Rs. 3/-frora the accused. The burfi so purchased Was divided into three equal parts and put in three different bottles and properly sealed. One such sample was given to the accused. The second was sent to the Public Analyst and the third was retained by P. W. 1 the Food Inspector. It appears that during transit, the sample bottle sent to the Public Analyst broke and, therefore, the Food Inspector had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ418
G. Ramanujam, J.1. A common question of law is involved in all the above cases and, therefore, they are disposed of together by a common judgment.2. As the facts in all these cases are substantially the same it is sufficient to set out the facts in T.C. No. 197 of 1970. The petitioner in this case is a partnership firm carrying on business in matches-For the assessment year 1964-55 it had paid a sum of Rs. 1,91,400 as and by way of excise duty to the Central Government on the matches manufactured and sold during that year. The petitioner had claimed a deduction of the aforesaid amount in its returns filed under the Central Sales Tax . Act, hereinafter called the Central Act, on the ground that excise duty paid to the Central Government is an allowable deduction under Rule 6 (f) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The assessing authority rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction on the ground that Section 9 (3) of the Central Act as it stood originally only attracted the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad4
1. Defendants 1 and 3 to 5 in O. S. No. 106 of 1967, on the file of VIII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, who succeeded before the trial Judge, but lost before the appellate Judge, are the appellants herein, the suit was instituted by the first respondent herein for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4216/- on the basis of Ex. A.2, the promissory note, said to have been executed by the second defendant on behalf of the first defendant as its managing director. The suit has been filed under Order XXXVII, Rule 2, C. P. Code. The plaint avers that the plaintiff, the first respondent herein, advanced a sum of Rs. 10,000 under the promissory note Ex. A.2, with interest thereon at 1.80 per cent, per mensem and that in respect of the said promissory note, the first defendant has paid to the plaintiff only Rs. 6000 and failed to pay the balance. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it is stated that the defendants are liable to pay the balance of Rs. 4,000 and a sum of Rs. 216 by way of interest from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1973Mad338; (1973)2MLJ54
ORDER1. The respondent in I.A No.389 of 1971 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, is the petitioner. The revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in I.A. No.389 of 1971 allowing the application I.A No 389 of 1971 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 36 of 1963, seeking to excuse the delay in filing the appeal against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 17-7-1969 under Section 9(3) of the Kanyakumari Sreepandaravaka Lands (Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwari) Act,31 of 1964, prescribing a period of three months for filing such appeals with a discretion to the Tribunal to extend the period by two months. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Act 31 of 1964 must be deemed to be a complete enactment dealing with the grant of roytwari patta and that the provision relating thereto and the Act not having provided an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the application ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1973]91ITR261(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. As all the above writ petitions are connected and the main points involved are also the same, they are dealt with together.2. The petitioner in all these cases is the same. One Sri S. B. Adityan, started publication of a daily newspaper known as ' Dina Thanthi' in Tamil as a proprietary concern in the year 1942. Later, he executed a trust deed on March 1, 1954: whereunder he constituted a trust called ' Thanthi Trust ', consisting of the properties described in the schedule thereto, for the following purposes :(a) to establish the Dina Thanthi or Daily Thanthi as an organ of educated public opinion for the Tamil reading public, (b) to disseminate news and to ventilate opinion upon all matters of public interest through the said newspaper, (c) to maintain the said newspaper and its press in an efficient condition, devoting the surplus income of the said newspaper and its press, after defraying all expenses, in improving and enlarging the said newspaper and its services ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]33STC251(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner in all these cases is Messrs. Rallis India Limited, hereinafter referred to as the assessee. The assessee is a dealer in cotton, fertilisers, electrical goods, tanning materials, etc. For the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1967-68, it was assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, hereinafter called the State Act, inter alia, on its last purchase of cotton within the State. The assessee objected to the same contending that cotton being declared goods, when it is sold in inter-State trade or commerce the tax levied and collected under the State Act has to be refunded as per Section 4-A of the State Act and that, therefore, in respect of cotton which has been sold inter-State by the assessee the tax on last purchases under the State Act could not be levied at all. This contention was overruled by the assessing authorities and the assessee thereafter filed applications in form A-4 for refund of the tax paid on the turnover of local purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1974]34STC326(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. Both these cases related to the same subject-matter. Messrs. Rallis India Limited, Madras, is the petitioner in both. For the assessment year 1966-67, it was assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,31,63,560. The said taxable turnover included a sum of Rs. 16,70,044.55 being the turnover on last purchase of cotton within the State. The petitioner objected to the inclusion of the said turnover contending that, cotton being declared goods when it is sold inter-State, the tax levied and collected under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the State Act), has to be refunded under Section 4-A of that Act, that, therefore, once the said declared goods are sold inter-State, there cannot be a levy and collection on the last purchase of those declared goods for, even if the levy and collection is made it has to be refunded later and that the levy and collection of the Central sales tax on the inter-State sales ...
Tag this Judgment!