Chennai Court July 1972 Judgments
T. Panchapakesan (Died) and ors. Vs. Peria Thambi Naicker (Died) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad133
1. This first defendant in O. S. No. 70 of 1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's court, Chingleput, is the appellant. The eleven plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit for a declaration that they are entitled to certain plots marked in the plaint plan and situated in S. No. 140 of Selayur village and for consequential permanent injunction restraining defendants 1, 9 and 10, from interfering with their possession of the said plots, or in the alternative, for partition and separate possession of 18/32 shares. The land in question measures 2.82 acres. It was originally a carpenter inam. It was resumed by the Government on 17-12-1935, and the Collector of Chingleput appears to have passed an order and issued patta in respect of this land. The terms of the order are not known as it is not produced. The plaintiffs claimed that on 21-7-1950, at a gathering of the mirasidars of the village, a partition was effected, that at that partition the plots mentioned by them were allotted to ...
Tag this Judgment!G. Krishnaswami Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]89ITR203(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. Itskarta was one V. Govindaswami Naidu. Its income consisted of incomefrom a tannery business and share incomes from a partnership firmby name V. Baluswami Naidu & Co. and another firm by name NayuduCoffee Supply Company. The income-tax returns for the assessmentyears 1948-49 and 1949-50 were filed by Govindaswami Naidu asthe karta. The enquiries made by the Income-tax Officer during thecourse of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1949-50revealed that a sum of Rs. 53,142 and another sum of Rs. 1,060 had beendeposited on June 25, 1947, and August 30, 1947, respectively, in thePodukkottai Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., in the name of Dewan Pesh-kar by and on behalf of Govindaswami Naidu. These two deposits totallingRs. 54,202 were found to have been utilised for payments of kists forcertain abkari contracts for which the licence was in the name of Govindaswami Naidu. Govindaswami Naidu submitted an explanation in...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal JaIn Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade Ii Divisio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: [1972]30STC391(Mad)
Madras Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. A notice dated 12th July, 1969, was issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Esplanade II Division, Madras, stating that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under section 45(2)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He was given an option to compound the offence by paying a sum of Rs. 1,000. The petitioner, for the first time, attempted to pay the amount by cheque, but under protest. This was not received. In those circumstances, the petitioner was obliged to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,000 in cash and take back the goods which were detained at the check post. With this background, the petitioner has filed this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the said sum of Rs. 1,000 so collected from him.2. The short facts are as follows : The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act....
Tag this Judgment!East India Corporation Ltd. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC330(Mad)
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners are registered dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In respect of their inter-State sales in cotton the gross turnover was determined, on the basis of the monthly returns filed by the petitioners, at Rs. 2,10,83,570.68 and the taxable inter-State sales at Rs. 8,54,347.76, by the assessment order dated 17th July, 1961, under the Central Sales Tax Act, for the assessment year 1958-59 by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai. The taxable turnover was also held to be taxable at one per cent. On examination of the connected records, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madurai Division, noticed that the turnover assessed represented only the sale value of cotton despatched by the assessee from Madras State to mills in other States and in the gross turnover not assessed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, a sum of Rs. 72,36,997.30 represented sales by the petitioners to the mills inside and outside Madras State of cotton ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Panchapakesan (Died) and ors. Vs. Peria Thambi Naicker (Died) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ590
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 70 of i960 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Chingleput, is the appellant. The eleven plaintiffs-respondents instituted the suit for a declaration that they are entitled to certam plots marked in the plaint-plan and situated in Section No. 140 of Selayur village and for consequential permanent injunction restraining defendants 1, 9 and 10 from interfering with their possession of the said plots, or in the alternative, for partition and separate possession of 18/32 shares. The land in question measures 2.82 acres. It was originally a carpenter man. It was resumed by the Government on 17th December, 1935 and the Collector of Chingleput appears to have passed an order and issued patta in respect of this land. The terms of the order are not known as it is not produced. The plaintiffs claimed that on 21st July, 1950, at a gathering of the mirasdars of the village, a partition was effected, that at that partition the plots me...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppu Ramalingam Chettiar Vs. Ranganathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad27
Palaniswamy, J.1.The unsuccessful plaintiff in the lower Court is the appellant. He sued for declaration of his right to be the trustee of the plaint-mentioned charities and to direct to defendant to deliver possession of the suit properties to him and also to render a true and correct account of the income of the properties. Except plaint item 6, the rest of the plaint-mentioned properties originally belonged to one Narasimha Chettiar, the ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants. On 22-6-1899, Narasimha Chettiar created a trust over those properties specifying what charities should be performed and providing for the mode of devolution of the office of trusteeship. He had four sons (1) Venkatarama Chettiar, (2) Subbarayalu Chettiar (3) Govindasawami Chettiar and (4) Ananthapadhmanabhan. Of these four persons, No. 1, Venkatarama Chettiar predeceased his father. Defendants 2 and 3 are the grandsons of Venkatarama Chettiar. Defendants 8, 9 and 10 are the male descendants of Ananthapa...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppu Ramalingam Chettiar Vs. Ranganatham Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ288
K.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the lower Court is the appellant. He sued for a declaration of his right to be the trustee of the plaint mentioned charities and to direct the first defendant to deliver possession of the suit properties to him and also to render a true and correct account of the income of the properties. Except plaint item 6, the rest of the plaint-mentioned properties originally belonged to one Narasimhan Chettiar, the ancester of the plaintiff and the defendants. On 22nd June, 1899, Narasimhan Chettiar created a trust over those properties specifying what charities should be performed and providing for the mode of devolution of the office of trustee-ship. He had four sons, (1) Venkatarama Chettiar, (2) Subbarayalu Chettiar, (3) Govindaswami Chettiar and (4) Ananthapadmanabhan. Of these four persons, No. 1 Venkatarama Chettiar pre-deceased his father. Defendants 2 and 3 arc the grandsons of Venkatarama Chettiar. Defendants 8, 9 and 10 are the male ...
Tag this Judgment!Palani Pannadi and ors. Vs. Nanjammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1681
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is a petition seeking to revise the order of the Court of the District Magistrate (J) of Coimbatore confirming the order of the trial Magistrate convicting the four accused-petitioners of the offence under Section 448 IPC and the consequential order passed under Section 522 (1) Crl. P. C. in regard to the restoration of the property to the complainant-respondent.2. Briefly the facts are: Naniammal fl?W. 3) obtained a decree for possession against accused-petitioners 2 and 3 in O. S. No. 1676 on the file of the court of the District Munsif of Coimbatore. in respect of the house bearing door No. 12/190 situated in Sineanallur. The complainant (P. W. 3) took out execution to recover possession, and delivery was ordered thereon by the Court. There is the delivery warrant issued to P. W. 1, the Amin of the court, to effect delivery. P. W. I. Amin, accompanied by P. W. 3, the decree-holder, and P. W. 2, the village munsif, went to effect delivery on 16-4-1970. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunjadam Alias Kunjadapadam Vs. Sha Hasthmal Babulal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ938
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an application to set aside the order of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal passed in Crl. M.P. 531 of 1970, and 553 of 1970 in C.C. No. 313 of 1970. The facts relevant to the present case are elaborately dealt with in the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3rd February 1972. He dismissed the petition Crl. M.P. 353 of 1970 wherein the present petitioner (Kunjadapadam) prayed for the return of M.Os. 1 to 9 to him. The trial Magistrate allowed the petition of one Sha Hasthmal Babulal in Crl. M.P. No. 531 of 1970 on his file. The present petitioner before this Court obviously and directly came to the High Court questioning the propriety of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3.2.1972. He filed the petition under Section 517. Cr.P.C. which was dismissed. Therefore, the proper forum for him is the Court of Appeal under Section 520, Cr.P.C. if he is aggrieved against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3....
Tag this Judgment!R.B. Subrahmanyan Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ620
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. So far as this Court is concerned, it is well established that ever though a search may be illegal or void for any reason, nevertheless, the articles recovered by means of that search can be put in evidence and that will be lawful. Illegality of search and seizure is one thing and the legality of the user of the articles is quite another. M.K. Annamalai Chettiar and Co. v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Perundurai and Anr. (1965) 16 S.T.C. 687, held that proposition. One of us decided that and that has been accepted and applied by a Division Bench in Sha Hastimal Khimchand v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruchirapalli W.P. No. 1199 of 1967 . This is what was held in M. K. Annamalai Chettiar and Company v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Perundurai and Anr. (1965) 16 S.T.C. 687..Whatever means by which the documents have been obtained, their admissibility will depend only on their relevancy and not on the means by which they have been procured....The ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »