Chennai Court July 1972 Judgments
J.K. Mullick Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: [1973]30STC443(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The question involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of tax under Section 3(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted declarations in form XVII as required under the Rules before the actual order of assessment was passed. But the assessing authority chose to reject the same on the ground that the original declaration forms filed within the time were defective, but the revised declaration forms filed were beyond time. This view has also been upheld by the appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal on the ground that the declarations in form XVII have to be filed along with the monthly returns as per Rule 22(5) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, and that, in this case, the correct declarations in form XVII having been filed later, they could not be taken into account. But, we find, the decision of this court in Gordon Woodroffe & Co. v. State of Madras [1...
Tag this Judgment!V.M.M. Venkatachalam Chettiar Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1972
Reported in: [1974]33STC584(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The only question that arises in this case is as to whether the disputed turnover of Rs. 14,859.75 represented the discount allowed to buyers as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner is a manufacturer of ice fruits and ice cakes and he sells them through certain street vendors. Those persons are supplied by the petitioner with ice boxes for the preservation of the products and bicycles for carrying them. They take the goods along the streets and sell them. From the sale proceeds realised by the said vendors the petitioner allows them a commission of 50 per cent in case of the vendors going to the villages and 35 per cent in case of vendors selling within the town. These vendors have been treated by the assessing authority, appellate authority and the Tribunal as persons employed by the petitioner for selling the goods, their remuneration being the said commission. The assessing authority treated the entire sale proceeds got by the vendors as the turnover of the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Nagammal and ors. Vs. Ayyavu thever and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad353; (1973)1MLJ273
1. Defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants. The question that arise for consideration in the second appeal is whether the plaintiff-purchasers are entitled to a refund of the advance paid in respect of an agreement of sale which fell through due to the defect in title of the defendant-vendors and in case the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund whether a charge could be created on the property covered by the agreement of sale.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The first defendant through her husband Kesava Naidu, and her brother one Nagasami Naidu negotiated for the sale of the suit property to the plaintiffs and on 26-5-1944 the plaintiff and the first defendant entered in to an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property whereby the first defendant agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 9085 to the plaintiffs and in pursuance of the said agreement, the plaintiffs paid an advance of Rs. 1500 to the first defendant. Under the terms of the said agreement the sale was to be com...
Tag this Judgment!N. Abdul Hadi Vs. Maju Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ725; (1973)1MLJ13
ORDERS. Maharajan, J.1. This revision is directed against the order of the Sub-Magistrate, Ambur, who, after convicting respondents 1 and 3 of the offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code (house trespass) refused to allow the petitioner's application under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code for restoration of possession of the house of which he had been dispossessed by the respondents. The conviction of the respondents has been confirmed in appeal as well as in revision by me. The question arises whether, in the circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate was right in refusing to order the victim's application for restoration of possession under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.2. It is true that the evidence on record shows that at the time the respondents committed house trespass, the petitioner was not in actual physical possession of the house and no violence was used against the person of the petitioner. Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, prescribes:(1) Whenever...
Tag this Judgment!The Trustees of Port of Madras Vs. Good Year India Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad316; (1973)1MLJ296
1. This appeal is by the Port Trust of Madras. The Good Year India Ltd. at Calcutta consigned to its branch office at Madras 614 packages of tyres, tubes and accessories under two bills of lading M 23 and M 24 both dated 31-1-1962 covering 443 and 171 packages respectively, by the vessel 'Jag Ganga' owned by the first defendant company, the Great Eastern Shipping Co. The vessel arrived at Madras on 6-2-1962. The first plaintiff company applied for delivery, but obtained delivery of only 594 packages. The remaining 20 packages were not delivered. The first plaintiff made an enquiry. The Assistant Traffic Manager of the second defendant Port Trust issued a B Certificate on 30-10-1962. Ex. A.4, stating that 20 packages had not been landed. The first plaintiff, therefore, made a claim on the shipping company. By their letter dated 22-12-1962, the shipping company repudiated the claim on the ground that the Port Trust had granted a receipt to them for having received 610 packages with the m...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.S. Veerappa Chettiar and Sons and ors. Vs. Kalidoss Chettiar and S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad150
ORDER1. The petitioners are the first respondent, fifth respondent and the legal representatives of the second respondent in I.P. 2 of 1965 on the file of the court of the subordinate Judge of Mayuram. They seek to file this petition against the order of the courts below declaring the first and second petitioners herein and the second respondent in the main insolvency petition, as insolvents as partners of a partnership. Ex. B-12 shows that the firm was registered on 11-12-1947, with five partners. Regarding the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent in the main petition, the records of the firm show that the first petitioner ceased to be a partner on 31-12-1956 and the second petitioner and the second respondent in the main petition ceased to be partners on 31-12-1958. This document shows that the partnership informed that authorities under the partnership Act that the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent in the main petition ceased to be partners from 31-12-1956 and 3...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ishwarlal and Co. and ors. Vs. State of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC377(Mad)
ORDERRamaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions a common question arises. It is agreed that the facts in W. P. No. 558 of 1969 may be noticed. Excepting for the difference in the amount of tax demanded and the names of the petitioners, the broad aspects are common in all the petitions.2. The petitioner in this writ petition was carrying on business in the name and style of Ishwarlal and Company during the assessment year 1967-68. They were dealers in jaggery and gur. They had interState transactions to the tune of Rs. 18,99,237.81 and they reported in their returns such inter-State turnover. After due check the turnover relating to inter-State sales was reckoned at Rs. 18,99,003.81. On 14th February, 1969, which notice is challenged in this writ petition, a proposal was made by the respondent to assess the petitioner to Central sales tax in respect of such inter-State sales referred to above, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Soon thereafter the petitioner has come up t...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.S. Veerappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kalidoss Chettiar and Sons, by P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ239
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The petitioners are the first respondent, fifth respondent and the legal representatives of the second respondent in I.P. No. 2 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram. They seek to file this petition against the : order of the Courts below declaring the first and second petitioners herein and the second respondent in the main insolvency petition as insolvents as partners of a partnership. Exhibit B-12 shows that the firm was registered on 11th. December, 1947, with five partners. Regarding the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent in the main petition, the records of the firm show that the first petitioner ceased to be a partner on 31st December, 1956 and the second petitioner and the second respondent in the main petition ceased to be partners on 31st December, 1958. This document shows that the partnership informed the authorities under the Partnership Act that the petitioners 1 and 2 and the second respondent in the main peti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Coimbatore Pictures (P.) Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: [1973]90ITR452(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The following question has been referred for ourdecision:' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the irrecoverable part of the advance amounting to Rs. 10,457 was a business loss deductible in the computation of, the assessee's income '2. The assessee is a private limited company and carries on business as distributor of talkie films. On January 9, 1956, the assessee entered into an agreement with one Joseph Pallpat, a film producer. The following are the relevant clauses of the agreement;' 1. The producers entrust the distribution of the said picture 'Verum Pechulla' to the distributors for the territories comprising the revenue districts of Coimbatore and Nilgiris for a period of five years from the date of its first release in the above territory along with simultaneous release in Tamil Nadu. 2. In consideration of the above, the distributors agree to pay an advance to the producers of a sum of Rs. 38,000 (thirty-eight thousand only) as depos...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Mohamed and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ48
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of premises No. 10, Purasawalkam High Road, Madras. Originally, the property was the subject-matter of a deed of sale dated 19th November, 1917. Under that sale deed, the Secretary of State for Indian in Council, as vendor, conveyed the property in question along with a greater extent there to the Purasawalkam Hindu High School Board. In that sale deed itself it was made clear that the purchaser, namely, the Board, was obliged to pay the assessment and taxes that may from time to time be levied upon the conveyed land. By an order of the State Government, the Board was permitted to alienate 8 grounds and 87 sq. ft. of the land, conveyed by the Secretary of State, to the Board of Trustees of Sir M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar's School for use as the site of the school. One of the conditions of the alienation was that the alienation would be free of ground rent, but subject to the condition that if any net income is derived from the land ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »