Chennai Court June 1972 Judgments
Madurai Municipality Vs. M.G. Ethiraj and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad69
1. The Madurai Municipal Council through its Executive Authority, the Commissioner, who is the first defendant in the suit is the appellant before this court. The respondents herein were served but they remain absent. The suit filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 5 was for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants, i.e., the Madurai Municipality and also the State of Madras through the District Collector, Madurai to remove the latrines and septic tanks in T. S. No. 2003/ 1-A in West Madurai and keep the said site as a road and also for a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality and its servants from dumping rubbish in the said road by the side of the house sites of the plaintiff. It is unnecessary for me to deal elaborately with the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the municipality acquired the portions from the plaintiffs for the purpose of having a scheme road. In that portion acquired, the municipality has constructed a public lavatory with septic tanks in the portio...
Tag this Judgment!Madurai Municipality Through Its Executive Authority the Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ327
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. The Madurai Municipal Council through its Executive Authority the Commissioner who is the first defendant in the suit is the appellant before this Court. The respondents herein were served but they remain absent. The suit filed by the plaintiffs 1 to 5 was for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants, i.e., the Madurai Municipality and also the State of Madras through the District Collector, Madurai to remove the latrines and septic tanks in T.S. No. 2003/1-A in west Madurai and keep the said site as a road and also for a permanent injunction restraining the Municipality and its servants from dumping rubbish in the said road by the side of the house sites of the plaintiff. It is unnecessary for me to deal elaborately with the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the Municipality acquired the portions from the plaintiffs for the purpose of having a scheme road. In that portion acquired, the Municipality has constructed a public lavatory with septic ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sattiapal Vs. the Pandiyan Brick Works, a Partnership Represented b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1972
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ281
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. This suit is for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 86,000 odd with interest at 6 per cent. per annum towards the contract executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is an engineering contractor and he entered into an agreement with the defendant, which is a partnership firm, to construct a brick kiln. The brick kiln has been completed. But some of the bills submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant have not been paid for. Hence the present suit.2. The defence to the suit is that the plaintiff has not constructed the brick kiln according to the specifications contained in the agreement between the parties, that there are a number of defects in the construction and that therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount. The defendant filed an additional written statement elaborating the above plea and giving details of the various alleged defects in the brick kiln and also valuing those defects. The additional written statement sums up the position stating that t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rani Lakshmi Ginning, Spinning and Weaving Mills (Private) Ltd. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC387(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a ginning, spinning and weaving mill, and it had an actual user's licence to import cotton from Africa. But, for facilitating the import, the assessee gave a letter of authority to one Patel and Co. The said Patel and Co., on the basis of the letter of authority given by the assessee, entered into a contract with the foreign sellers and actually imported the goods, and thereafter delivered the same to the assessee.2. On these facts, the question that was .canvassed before the assessing authority was that the purchase turnover of cotton imported through Patel and Co. should be exempted as import purchases. The assessing authority did not accept this contention. But the same contention was accepted by the appellate authority, who held that the turnover in cotton purchased by the assessee through Patel and Co. is liable to be exempted under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as sales in the course of import. This view of the Appel...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ekambara Mudaliar and anr. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-21-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC591(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioners in this case were dealers in various goods as also commission agents. They were assessed for the year 1957-58 under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 (Madras Act 9 of 1939), on 15th April, 1960, on a net turnover of Rs. 1,79,249.95. The said assessment order was revised by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes suo motu under Section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Madras Act 1 of 1959), by an order dated 30th March, 1963 and he enhanced the net turnover by Rs. 1,40,617.29. As a result of the said revision the net turnover on which the petitioners have been assessed was Rs. 3,19,867.24. As against the enhancement of the turnover by the revisional authority, there was an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. But the Tribunal upheld substantially the enhancement except as regards a small turnover of Rs. 4,400.2. Before us the petitioners question the enhancement made by the revisional authority not only on merits but also on t...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Abdul Waheed Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Board of Reven ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC277(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Board of Revenue setting aside the assessments made against the appellant for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, directing the assessing authority to pass fresh orders of assessment as also orders regarding the penalty.2. The assessee in this case has been doing business in foreign goods like ready-made garments, biscuits, Horlicks, soaps, electrical goods, flasks, etc., but he did not register himself as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. He also did not submit any return for his business in any of the previous years. However, his place of business was inspected by the special departmental staff and during that inspection, certain slips and anamath accounts were recovered. On verification of those anamath accounts and slips, it was found that the assessee had during the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 taxable turnover of Rs. 10,920.71 an...
Tag this Judgment!F.K. Haseeb and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-20-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC213(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The disputed turnover in this case is Rs. 1,38,054.38, which was claimed by the assessee as representing the inter-State purchases of raw hides and skins and not the local purchases made by the assessee as held by the Board of Revenue. Initially, this turnover was held by the assessing authority to represent the local purchases of raw hides and skins by the assessee, though from an outside vendor and brought to tax2. On appeal, however, the appellate authority considered this turnover with reference to relative documents and held that this turnover represented inter-State purchases. The appellate authority mainly proceeded on the basis of the lorry way-bills which showed that the goods were consigned by the out-of-State dealer to the assessee as his buyer. The appellate authority did not go into the question as to whether there were any prior contracts of purchase in pursuance of which the goods were consigned through lorries in all these cases, amounting to the above ...
Tag this Judgment!R.E.M. Ramakutty Nadar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC44(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner in both these cases, admittedly a dealer in salt, did not submit returns for the years 1962-63 and 1963-64 under Section 12(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, presumably on the basis that the transaction in salt did not attract the levy of sales tax. However, there was a surprise inspection of the petitioner's place of business on 26th July, 1964, by the sales tax authorities and certain slips and pocket-note books had been recovered, in the presence of the petitioner's agent one Kalyanasundaram and also another clerk by name Velayudham. A surprise inspection of the residence of Kalyanasundaram was also made on the same date and some slips and pocket-note books were also recovered. Statements were taken from the said Kalyanasundaram as well as Velayudham at the time of the seizure of the slips and pocket-note books. In the statement given by Kalyanasundaram, he has admitted that the slips and anamath note books related to the transactions of th...
Tag this Judgment!R. Arumugham Chettiar Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC71(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner is a dealer in gingelly oil, castor oil, vanaspati, etc. and he reported gross and taxable turnovers of Rs. 3,26,766.99 and Rs. 83,913-24 respectively. The assessing officer, after a check of the accounts produced and after considering the anamath books recovered from the place of business on 28th November, 1963, determined the gross turnover at Rs. 3,59,287.57 and the net turnover at Rs. 1,18,48941 and subjected the same to tax at various rates as per the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, depending upon the nature of the goods dealt with. The assessing authority added a sum of Rs. 19,737.39 in the taxable turnover said to be the suppressions for the whole year as per the anamath account books recovered. The suppressions as per the anamath account books were Rs. 6,579.13. The assessee questioned this addition of Rs. 19,737.39 in the taxable turn-Over as suppressed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who, after going through each entr...
Tag this Judgment!K.A. Namasivaya Mudaliar Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-15-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ201
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The election of the Chairman of Alangulam Panchayat Union Council was conducted on 13th August, 1970. The petitioner and the second respondent secured at such an election equal votes. It therefore became necessary for the Revenue Divisional Officer who was in charge of the conduct of the election to draw lots in the presence of other members and act in accordance with Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Union Councils (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1960. When he caused the lots to be so drawn and requested a child of 3 years to be brought in for purposes of picking out the chit in the course of such drawing of lots, the petitioner was not the person whose name was first drawn. Therefore, the second respondent was declared elected as Chairman of the Panchayat Union Council. It is as against the method adopted by the first respondent as the person in charge of the election that the present writ petition has been filed and incidentally the re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »