Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Gurumurthy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ466
S. Ganesan, J.1. The appellants, four in number, have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of West Thanjavur Division under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The first appellant had been sentenced to imprisonment for life for offences Under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and the third appelland has been sentenced to death and imprisonment for life respectively Under Sections 302 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. It is unnecessary to refer to other convictions and sentences.2. A preliminary objection is raised by Sri N. T. Vanamamalai, appearing on behalf of the appellants that the entire trial is vitiated in so far as the first three appellants are concerned, as the learned Sessions Judge had admittedly not appointed a State Counsel to defend the said appellants. It is pointed out that under Rule 166 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1958, the Sessions Judge has an imperative duty to engage a pleader to defend an accused person in grave charges like...
Takkadi Syed Mohamed Vs. Ahmed Fathummal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ630
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for partition, separate possession and for accounts. The first Schedule and second Schedule to the plaint are immoveable properties and the third and the fourth Schedules are moveable properties. The plaintiff claimed 38/240111 share in the first and fourth Schedules 53/1440th share in the second Schedule and one-fifth share in the third Schedule properties. The plaintiff is the sister of the first and second defendants. They are the children of one Thakkadi Ahmed Mohideen. According to the plaint, the first and fourth Schedule properties belonged to Thakkadi Ahmed Mohideen. After his death, the plaintiff and first and second defendants inherited the same and were in joint and constructive possession. The deceased Thakkadi Ahmed Mohideen left also one Thakkadi Mohammad Abubacker and Asial Beevi as his heirs, along with the plaintiff and the second defendant. Thakkadi Mohammed Abub...
R.P. David and ors. Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: [1972]86ITR699(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J. 1. These petitions are to quash the orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, dated January 11, 1972. The matter related to the assessment year 1971-72. By petitions dated December 27, 1971, and January 1, 1972, the assessees, on the ground that they had filed appeals, invoked the proviso to Section 40 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, and asked for stay of collection of that part of the tax covered by the appeals. The petitions were dismissed. Reason for dismissal is stated thus:'The assessment was made under Section 17(4) with the best of my knowledge. It is also ascertained from the village officer that the assessee is financially sound and he is in a position to pay the agricultural income-tax. Therefore, I consider that there is no necessity to use the discretion vested under the proviso to Section 40 in favour of the assessee inasmuch as the petitioner is reported to be financially in sound position.'2. We are clearly of opinion that the order...
Commissioner, Corporation of Madras Vs. Assistant Collector of Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT653(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The Corporation of Madras, the petitioner herein is haying a general workshop at Madras where iron and steel products like cast iron pipes arc manufactured for its own purposes like lighting, drainage, water supply etc. During the period 24.04.1962 and 28.02.1964, the value of the iron and steel products so manufactured by it was Rs. 2,53,226.37. The Central Excise authority took the view that as iron and steel products were liable to bear excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the petitioner was liable to pay an excise duty of Rs. 1,266.32 on the value of the said products manufactured and issued a demand for the said sum. The petitioner filed its objections to the same on the ground inter alia that it is not manufacturing these Items for sale and that it was a quasi-Government institution. The said contention was not accepted by the first respondent, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, who passed an order dated 17.10.67, confirming the demand...
Ganapathy Naicker and anr. Vs. the Special Officer for Wakfs
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ239
P. S. Kailasam, J.1. The petitioners are the usufructuary mortgagees of wakf properties. One item of the property was mortgaged on 8th April, 1965 for Rs. 1,000 and another on 11th January, 1968 for Rs. 2,000. Subsequent to the passing of the amendment to the Wakf Act, 1954, section 36-A provides that:Notwithstanding anything contained in the wakf deed, no transfer of any immoveable property of a wakf by way of(i) sale, gift, mortgage or exchange; or(ii) lease for a period exceeding three years in the case of agricultural land, or for a period exceeding one year in the case of non-agricultural land or building, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Board.2. It is common ground that though the Act came into force in 1964 and the two transactions in question were in 1965 and 1968, previous sanction of the Board was not obtained. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that by this amendment, all that was intended was to accord statutory recognition to t...
G. Ramaswamy Naidu (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1972
Reported in: [1972]86ITR768(Mad)
RAMASWAMI J. - The following question has been referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of development rebate in excess of the statutory percentage required to be made under the Income-tax Act is part of the accumulated profits of the company within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessee is the governing director of a private limited company called Sri Karthikeya Spinning and Weaving Mills Private Ltd., Coimbatore. During the year ending December 31, 1961, which is the accounting year of the company, the assessee had drawn a sum of Rs. 71,792. These drawings were conceded to be the loans or advances from the company. The balance-sheet of the company on December 31, 1961, disclosed a sum of Rs. 3,35,462.50 under the heading 'Development Rebate Reserve' as per the last balance-sheet and a sum of Rs. 1,41,035 as provision made in that account during the year. There was a sum o...
Aswini Transports (P) Ltd., Pollachi Vs. Pollachi Roadways (P) Ltd. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad172
1. The appellants had filed petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which rules nisi went out. They related to grant of stage carriage permit and sought certiorari against the orders of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated respectively 28-11-1969 and 8-2-1971. On 30-7-1971 the Motor Vehicles (Tamil Nadu Second Amendment) Act 1971, was passed which has force from 18-6-1971. Section 10 of the Amending Act provides:--"Revision by High Court: The State Transport Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act V of 1980), and its orders shall be liable to revision by the High Court under the provisions of the said section".In 1962, Issardas S. Lulla v. Smt. Hari, , held that Article 226 of the Constitution did not clothe the High Court with jurisdiction to quash orders of the subordinate courts. Since then that has been the practice of this court. So, an and from 18-6-1971, si...
Sivakami Company Private Ltd. and ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1972
Reported in: [1973]88ITR311(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. An identical question of law has been referred in these four tax cases under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), at the instance of the respective assessees.2. The assessee in T. C. 83/66 is Rukmani Co. Private Ltd. It is a private limited company incorporated in the former Pudukottai State and now a company under the Companies Act, 1956. The paid up capital of the assessee-company consists of 50 shares of the face value of Rs. 1,000 each, fully paid up and the shareholders during the material time were Padmanabha Private Ltd. holding 25 shares and Pudukottah Corporation Private Ltd. holding the remaining 25 shares. On March 14, 1957, the assessee sold 800 shares held by it in East India Corporation Ltd. and 1,000 shares held by it in Madura Insurance Company Ltd. to Pachnayaki Private Ltd., Coimbatore, for a sum of Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 75,000, respectively. The cost price of the 800 East India Corporation Ltd. shares was ...
The Melur Co-operative Marketing Society Vs. Salia Maniam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad30
1. The fourth defendant in O.S. No. 335 of 1965 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur, is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit properties consisting of three items of wet lands belonged to the first defendant Nainammal. The first defendant has three sons, and they are, Masthan (the second defendant), Manian and minor Mohammed Uthirif. Though her sons had no title to the properties, a sale deed was written on 18-3-1955 (Ex. A-1) in which the vendors were the first defendant and her three sons, the first defendant acting for herself and as guardian of the said minor. But the document was signed only by the first defendant for herself and as guardian for her minor son and the second defendant. The sale was for Rs. 2450. The document inter alia recited that the vendors had received Rs. 530 on the date of the execution of the sale deed and that the balance of the consideration, namely, Rs. 1,900, would be received in the presence of the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registra...
P.V. Krishnaier and anr. Vs. Perumal Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad173
1. The defendants are the appellants. The respondent herein filed a suit substantially for three relief's: (1) for a declaration that the lane marked CEDF in the plaint plan in his exclusive property and for possession; (2) for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right to drain water from his tiled roof situate on the eastern side of the lane, and also to have a free flow of light and air through the windows that exist on his western wall shown as C. F. in the plaint plan, and (3) for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession of the lane south of the line AF and also from letting in their sludge water in a gutter situate in that lane.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the plaintiff is not the owner of the lane marked CDEF, that the said lane belonged to them exclusively, that the plaintiff has no easementary right over that lane, and that the lane south of the line A F is not the exclusive lane o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »