Chennai Court April 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.
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Dhanalakshmi Trading Compa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC113(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The State is the petitioner herein. It is aggrieved against thedecision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, holding thatthe assessee is entitled to the benefits of the provision in Section3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunalpurported to follow the decisions in Commercial Tax Officer v.Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation [1965] 16 S.T.C. 281and Krishnaswami Naidu and Sons v. State of Madras [1965] 16 S.T.C. 671, wherein this court expressed the view that whengroundnut oil is used for manufacture of vanaspati, the groundnutoil, being a component part which went into the production ofvanaspati, Section 3(3) stood attracted in the case. After the filingof this tax case, the Supreme Court has also rendered the decisionin State of Madras v. R.M. Krishnaswami Naidu [1970] 26 S.T.C. 42 , confirming the view taken by this court in theaforementioned two cases. The decision of the Supreme Court wasto the effect that if a component is capable o...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. Kodaikanal Motor Union Pri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC1(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The respondents in all the four cases are the same and they were assessees under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the assessment years 1958-59 to 1961-62, it was found that they had purchased motor spare parts on the basis of the 'C' form certificate issued to them under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act for sale, but instead of selling them, they used them for their own consumption. The revenue proceeded on the basis that since the goods purchased were not used for the purpose specified in Section 8(3)(b) and as recorded in the 'C' form certificate, the assessee has committed an offence under Section 10(d) of the Act in that he has used the goods purchased by him on the basis of the 'C' form certificate for a purpose Other than the one mentioned therein and, therefore, they are liable to penalty as well. All the authorities below, including the Tribunal, have found that the assessee has actually committed the offence under Section 10(d) in using the goods...
Rajagopal Vs. M. Oppilamani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ618
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The appellant, at the election. President of Keeramangalam Town Panchayat, was elected by 1,348 votes as against 1,191 votes secured by the first respondent. Of the election petition filed by the first respondent, the Tribunal found that the appellant Was guilty of corrupt practices, inasmuch as he has used a taxi, treated voters and prevented canvassing voters supporting the first respondent. This is the finding:Hence I find that R.W. 1 has indulged in corrupt practices alleged in the petition and such practices will no doubt materially affect the election. It is proved by the petitioner that the election has been affected materially by the conduct of the first respondent.The Tribunal accordingly set aside the election. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the appellant failed and he has, therefore, come up in appeal.2. For establishing corrupt practice by use of a taxi, the first respondent had examined himself and two others, one of whom was a ta...
Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. Rakkammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ731
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. There was house breaking and theft in the house of the respondent on 3.8.1969, One Komaru Thevgr was arrested by the Inspector of Police on the 19th of September, 1969. He took the Inspector to the shop of this (petitioner and from there the chain M.O. 2 was recovered. He was tried for the offence under Section 380. Indian Penal Code along with another person. The Sub-Magistrate disbelieved the case of recovery put forward by the prosecution and acquitted both the persons. He did not Pass any orders as regards the disposal of the properties seized in the case. Subsequently, he started proceedings for the disposal of the properties and he issued notice to the respondent, petitioner and others. The Magistrate who succeeded him ordered the return of M.O. 2 to the respondent and on appeal this was confirmed. The petitioner contends that this order is erroneous.2. M.O. 2 chain was recovered from the possession of this petitioner. The learned Magistrate has acquitted ...
In Re: Palaniappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ497
S. Ganesan, J.1. The appellant Palaniappan had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Salem under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for having murdered one Ramasami.2. No previous enmity is alleged between the appellant and the deceased Ramasami. P.W. 2, Kandasami is the younger brother of the appellant and the deceased was P.W. 2's brother-in-law; and P.W. 3 is the wife of the deceased. They all reside in The Kandampalayam village in Salem district.3. The occurrence is said to have taken place at about 1 P.M. on 26th October, 1969 in the cattleshed of the appellant. P.W. 1 is said to have been there paving the front yard of his shed with cement; and P.W. 2 the prother of the appellant is said to have been there shodding his bull near the road side close by. Both these witnesses heard the words of distress of the deceased . There upon both the witnesses ran towards the appellant's cattle shed from which the alarm emanated. As P.W. 2 ...
Jugalkishore Devideen Vs. Sri Murugan Ghee Supply Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad331
1. These two appeals arise out of O. S. No. 114 of 1958 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Erode. The third defendant is the appellant in A. S. 558 of 1964 and the plaintiff is the appellant in A. S. 199 of 1965. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 16715-31 from defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, carrying on business in ghee, oil and oil seeds at Dharapuram. Defendants 1 and 2 are the Union of India, represented by the General Managers, Central Railway and the Southern Railway. The third defendant is a firm carrying on similar business at Itarsi in Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiff firm and the third defendant firm were having dealings for some time past. The fourth defendant and his son fifth defendant are brokers and commission agents. In the first week of February, 1958, the third defendant sold through these brokers a wagon load of tilly seeds at Rs. 59 per bag of two imperial maunds each. The third defendant agreed to deliver...
Padmasani Ammal Vs. Devaraja Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad294; (1973)1MLJ26
1. The respondent in the above appeals and civil revision petition was the defendant in O. S. No. 3185 of 1960 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The suit was filed by the appellant in the above appeals and petitioner in the civil revision petition on 23-12-1960 for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent and future rent till delivery of possession, on the ground that the appellant is the landlady of the vacant site occupied by the respondent and that the respondent should be evicted from the suit land. The respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying that, inasmuch as the respondent had built the superstructure on the suit land, the appellant must be directed to sell the suit land to him for the price fixed by the court in accordance with law. The court ordered that petition. But, unfortunately, the respondent was not able to pay the amount, fixed by the court, as compensation for...
P. Madhavan Unni Vs. M. Jayapandia Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad2
1. This Letters Patent Appeal filed with the leave of Venkatadri, J., in the first instance came up for hearing before my Lord, the Chief Justice and myself, and we felt that the judgment of Venkatadri, J. who reversed the judgments and decrees of the Courts below failed to appreciate the distinction between two lines of cases dealing with the power of transfer of a proceeding under Sections 24 and 39, Civil P. C. and the entire case was placed before the Full Bench. The facts of the case are as follows.2. The appellant obtained a money decree against the respondent in O.S. 73 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ottapalam. The respondent (judgment-debtor) owned properties in Tirunelveli Dt. On the application of the decree-holder the decree was transferred to the District Court, Tirunelveli, for execution. In the District Court, Triunelveli, he filed E. P. 14 of 1952 and attached certain properties lying within the territorial jurisdiction of the Triunelveli Judicial Di...
The Indian Officers' Association Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC138(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner, the Indian Officers' Association, challenges by way of writ of certiorari a demand issued by the sales tax department for a sum of Rs. 4,523.45 being the amount of sales tax assessed on the petitioner for the various years from 1961-62 to 1966-67. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of the argument stated that there were no regular assessments and the demand dated 15th March, 1967, was issued for the first time and that they had no opportunity to challenge the assessments earlier, it is actually seen from the assessment records that there were orders of assessment for each of the years from 1961-62 to 1966-67, that as a matter of fact, in respect of one year, i.e., 1959-60, the petitioner actually challenged the order of assessment made on it by filing an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed Jhe appeal. It appears that the petitioner has been approaching the ...
P. Madhavan Unni Vs. M. Jayapandia Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ309
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal filed with the leave of Venkatadri, J., in the first instance came up for hearing before my Lord the Chief Justice and myself and we felt that the judgment of Venkatadri, J., who reversed the1 judgments and decrees of the Courts below failed to appreciate the distinction between two lines of cases dealing with the power of transfer of a proceeding under Sections 24 and 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the entire case was placed before the Full Bench. The facts of the case are as follows:2. The appellant obtained a money-decree against the respondent in O.S. No. 73 of 1949, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ottapalam. The respondent (judgment-debtor) owned properties in Tirunelveli District. On the application of the decree-holder the decree was transferred to the District Court, Tirunelveli, for execution. In the District Court, Tirunelveli, he filed E.P. No. 14 of 1952, and attached certain properties lying within the terr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »