Skip to content

Chennai Court June 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.

Jun 14 1972

Muthammal Vs. K. Jagadeesa Mudaliar and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-14-1972

Reported in: AIR1973Mad230

1. The matter has been placed before us, as a question of procedure arises. The petitioner had applied for leave to sue in forma pauperis which was not granted. The Court below allowed time for payment of court-fee. But it was not paid. The petition is to revise the order of the Court below declining leave to sue in forma pauperis. As objection seems to have been taken on behalf of the respondents that only an appeal would lie. Kailasam, J. considered this and was of the view that only a revision would lie. He, however, felt that as Bommisetty Ramayamma In re, took a different view the question may be settled by a Division Bench.2. We are clearly of the view that the only remedy, if at all open to the petitioner, is by way of revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. Refusal of leave to sue in forma pauperis is but an order not having the force of a decree. Unless an appeal is specifically provided for from an order the only remedy is by way of revision. Appeal has been provided for only...


Jun 14 1972

Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division Vs. T.M. Ramaswamy Che ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-14-1972

Reported in: [1973]30STC556(Mad)

Ramanujam, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this tax case is as to whether the interference of the Tribunal with the order of the lower authorities disallowing a sum of Rs. 23,557.47 as second sales of oil is proper. The assessee in this case is a manufacturer of gingelly oil. He not only manufactured oil but also purchased the same locally. He sold oil locally as well as inter-State, but he had not, however, maintained separate stock accounts in respect of the sale of the locally purchased oil as well as manufactured oil, and from the accounts it was not possible to say whether the said turnover of Rs. 23,557.47 being the sales of oil was from the oil purchased locally or from the manufactured stock. The assessee's explanation for not keeping a separate stock account in respect of oil locally purchased and the oil manufactured by him was that it was impracticable to keep separate stock accounts.2. The assessing authority in this case, in the absence of a separat...


Jun 13 1972

Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner ...

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-13-1972

Reported in: [1973]90ITR439(Mad)

Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case is a private limited company called Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Ltd., engaged in the manufacture and sale of roofing tiles, etc. The above company was originally a public limited company managed by an agency company by name, A.K. Ranganathan and Sons (P.) Ltd., on a remuneration of Rs. 1,000 p.m. together with a commission of 10% on the net profits. One A.R. Krishnamoorthy and A.R. Rajagopalan were the directors in the managing agency company. The managing agents resigned with effect from December 1, 1956. The directors of the company appointed the said two persons as the managing directors of the company. The articles of association was suitably altered and an agreement was entered between these two persons and the company on November 22, 1956, whereunder these two persons were to be managing directors for a period of 10 years from December 1, 1956, on a remuneration of Rs. 1,000 per month for each and a commission of 5% e...


Jun 13 1972

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pl. M. Tt. Firm

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-13-1972

Reported in: [1973]87ITR260(Mad)

V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The following question has been referred under Section 256(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (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 assessee should be assessed as a 'non-resident' for the assessment year 1962-63 ?'2. The assessee is a firm of four partners carrying on business in Ceylon in pawn-broking and money-lending. All the four partners are residing in India. The firm was constituted on November 10, 1937. On July 15, 1942, the four partners executed a power of attorney in favour of one V. Mariappa Pillai, who is residing in Ceylon. The assessee-firm had all along been assessed as a resident and ordinarily resident, but for the assessment year 1962-63, the assessee claimed that it should be assessed as a non-resident on the ground that the management and control of the business vested in the power of attorney agent who was a permanent resident of Ceylon and...


Jun 13 1972

Ambal and Co. Vs. the Government of Madras

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-13-1972

Reported in: [1973]31STC53(Mad)

V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners are dealers in snuff and for the assessment year 1958 59, the total turnover determined by the Additional Commercial Tax Officer, North Madras, was Rs. 13,00,695.47 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The account books of the petitioners revealed purchase of packing material to the value of Rs. 1,28,018.88 and the balance out of the total turnover determined, represented the actual value of the snuff sold. Snuff is exempted from sales tax and, therefore, only the value of the packing material was subjected to tax. The petitioners objected to this assessment and filed an appeal against the order contending that the entire turnover represented ' the sale of snuff and there was no sale of packing material as such. It may be mentioned that in the bills for sale of snuff the packing materials have not been separately specified and charged by the petitioners. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal confirmed th...


Jun 13 1972

T.S. Govindarajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-13-1972

Reported in: [1973]30STC376(Mad)

ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The petitioner in this case was originally assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1966-67 on a turnover of Rs. 49,176.26 at the rate of 1 per cent, under item 15 of Schedule I. Later, the assessing authority appears to have revised his view and issued a notice under Section 16 proposing to reassess the said turnover at the rate of 21 per cent, treating the turnover as not coming under item 15 of Schedule I. Item 15 of Schedule I as amended by Madras Act 10 of 1963 is as follows: 'Bullion pure or alloy and specie.'2. It is at the stage of the issue of notice under Section 16 of the Act, that the petitioner filed the above writ petition and sought a writ of prohibition against the proposed reassessment under Section 16. The petitioner also prayed for stay of the reassessment proceedings. Though the writ petition was admitted, this court was not inclined to grant a stay of the reassessment proceedings and in fact, allowed the proceedin...


Jun 13 1972

In Re: P. Rayappa Goundar

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jun-13-1972

Reported in: (1972)2MLJ389

ORDERS. Maharajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the learned District Magistrate, Coimbatore, convicting the 3rd accused Rayappa Gounder of the offence under Clause 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Dealers (Licensing Regulation and Disposal of Stocks) Order, 1968 read with a Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 100, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and confiscating a sum of Rs. 850 deposited by the 3rd accused as a condition precedent to the return of 20 bags of paddy to him.2. In Manipur Administration v. Mild Chandra Singh : 1964CriLJ465 , the Supreme Court construed the definition of 'dealer' as contained in Clause 2(a) of the Marapur Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. That clause defines a 'dealer' as meaning a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale, of any one Or more of the foodgrains in quantity of one hundred maunds or ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial