Chennai Court August 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.
C.V. Ramaswamy Gounder and Sons Erode Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC350(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. This tax case has been filed by the assessees against the Order of the Board of Revenue passed in a suo motu revision Under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessees are dealers in turmeric and oil at Erode and they were assessed to tax for the year 1961-62 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,95,597.74 by the assessing authority on 9th July, 1964. While determining the taxable turnover the assessing authority rejected the claim of the assessees for exemption, inter alia, on a turnover of Rs. 1,23,878.50 being the commission sales of turmeric to self on behalf of agriculturist-principals.2. Aggrieved against the rejection of the claim, the assesaees preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, by his Order dated 6th January, 1966, cancelled the assessment on the said turnover of Rs. 1,23,878.50 holding that the assessees have acted only as agents of the agriculturist-principals, that they have not sold goods to anybody ex...
Ranganayaki Ammal and Others Vs. Controller of Estate Duty.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1972
Reported in: [1973]88ITR96(Mad)
RAMANUJAM J. - One Bheema Naidu died on 25th November, 1953, leaving behind him his widow, a widowed daughter-in-law and several grandchildren. An account of the estate duty with regard to the property passing on the death of the said Bheema Naidu was furnished by his widow and daughter-in-law as accountable person under the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to the Deputy Controller of Estate Duty, Madras. The Deputy Controller determined the principal value of the estate at Rs. 19,34,884 which included, inter alia, a sum of Rs. 7,33,007 being the difference between the deceaseds legal share in the properties of the Hindu undivided family of which he was a member and the share actually allotted to him on partition of the family on December 31, 1951. This inclusion is said to have been made by the revenue in accordance with the provision of section 9 read with section 27 and Explanation 2 to section 2(15) of the Act as a gift made by the deceased within two y...
L.A.N.N. Alagappan Vs. P.S. Kalyanasundaram Iyer (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1972
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ291
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The defendant who lost in O.S. No. 3720 of 1970 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant. The plaintiffs sued on a promissory note, but on the foot of an equitable mortgage over the property of the defendant judgment debtor, which, according to the plaintiffs, was created by a voluntary act on the part of the defendant by depositing title deeds in respect of the property and confirming such deposit under a letter which the defendant executed after such deposit of title deeds. The case of the plaintiffs is that under Exhibit A-2 dated 27th November, 1967, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 40,000 promising to repay the same with interest at 12 per cent per annum. In fact, before the money was advanced, the defendant in Exhibit A-1 dated 22nd November, 1967, sought for the loan and expressed his willingness to deposit with the plaintiffs the title deeds of his property as collateral security for the due repayment of the amount. On such offer...
In Re: Santhanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1316
ORDERGokulakrishnan, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for expunging the remarks made by the trial Magistrate (Additional First Class Magistrate No. 2, Madurai) in paragraph 27 of his iudgment dated 9-1-1968 in C. C- No. 87 of 1967. on his file, and also by lower appellatp court (Court of Session Madurai) in Paragraph 7 of his iudement made in C. A. Nos. 8, 9 and 30 of 1968, dated 30-8-1968. against the petitioner herein. The petitioner has extracted the portions sought to be expunged, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of his affidavit in support of this petition.2. The facts are simple. Four persons were charged by the Inspector of Police, BX North, Madurai, for offences under Section 120-B read with Section 379 IPC on the allegation that they had entered into a conspiracy at about 1 d. m. on 19-5-67 to commit theft of pig-iron from the open yard belonging to the Raw Material Depot. Industrial Estate Madurai, and Pursuant to the said conspiracy, on the samp night, at 2 a. m...
R. Somasundaram and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ15
ORDERK.S. Palaniswamy, J.1. Somasundaram, the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 3852 and 3353 of 1970, and Rajangam, the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 3354 and 3355 of 1970, belong to the Pondicherry Co-operative Department. Somasundaram was directly recruited as a Junior Inspector in the year 1960, whereas Rajangam was directly recruited as Senior Inspector in the year 1960. They have undergone the necessary training. Prior to 6th March, 1970, it was the policy of the Government of India to prescribe scales of pay and allowance in certain Union Territories on the basis of the scales obtaining for corresponding posts in the adjoining States. In accordance with that policy, the Tamil Nadu scales of pay were prescribed by the Government of India for adoption in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The scales of pay and allowances of the employees of the Union Territories of Delhi and Goa were based on the scales of pay of the Central Government. This appears to have been the ground for the Government of ...
Arunachalam and ors. Vs. the Estates Abolition Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ594
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In these writ petitions, a common question which in turn depends upon acceptance and proof of facts arises. The petitioners are ryots. Their case is they are entitled to a ryotwari patta to items 1 to 12 and 24 in the petition filed before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Salem, in R.P. No. 21 of 1965, Dharmapuri, whereas the respondents as landholders equally claim that they are entitled to such a patta under Section 12(a)(i) of the Estates Abolition Act (XXVI of ig48), as such lands are their private lands. It is common ground that evidence was let in both before the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Salem who is the statutory appellate authority constituted under Section 15(2) of Act XXVI of 1948 to consider questions arising under Section 12(a)(1) as well as other incidental questions relating to the grant of patta in respect of lands which were admittedly Zamindari lands but since abolished under the above Act and taken...
Govindasami Chettiar and anr. Vs. M.V.N. Kalidoss Chettiar and Sons an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad168
ORDER1. These petitions are filed by respondents 3 and 4 in Insolvency Petition No. 2 of 1965 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram. C. R. P. 2235 of 1971 is filed against the order of the learned District Judge of East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam dismissing the appeal filed by the first respondent, fifth respondent and the legal representatives of the second respondent in the main insolvency petition. C. R. P. 2236 of 1971 is filed against the order of the learned District Judge refusing to implead the petitioners herein as parties in the appeal before the District Judge. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioning creditor that the two civil revision petitions are not maintainable in law as the petitioners have not preferred any appeal to the District Court against the order of the trial Court.2. Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, provides that the High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself than an order made ...
Angu Pillai and ors. Vs. M.S.M. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1974Mad16
Palaniswamy, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits disposed of by a common judgment by the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga. In both the suits (O.S. 54 of 1961 and O.S. 55 of 1961) the plaintiff was the same. The plaintiff Kasiviswanathan Chettiar is the son of one Samasundram Chettiar. Angu Pillai alias Kalyani Achi the sole defendant in O.S. 54 of 1961, had obtained a money decree in O.S. 1 of 1959 on the file of a Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, against Subramania Chettiar, and attached certain properties in execution of that decree. The plaintiff intervened with a claim under Section 47 C.P.C. contending inter alia that the money of his mother Kuppachi alias Visalakshi had been deposited with the joint family, which was having money lending business in Malaya, Burma and Madurai, and that on the death of his mother, he as the sole heir, become entitled to the said amount, that the amount was calculated and settled at Rupees 40,000 that his father had executed an agreement on 28-...
Tiruvengada Varadachariar and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad281
1. This appeal filed by the plaintiffs raises the question as to the scope of Section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.). The plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 are the descendants of one Chinna Ramanuja Aiyangar. The suit was laid for recovery of possession of the plaint mentioned temple called Sri Venugopalasami temple, Katteri, Mannargudi, and the immovable properties described in the plaint. Relief's were sought against defendants 1 and 2 on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4. The plaintiffs alleged that the lands described in the plaint belonged to the suit temple and that they and defendants 3 and 4 were the sole hereditary trustees thereof. They referred to several litigation's in their family with regard to the affairs of the temple and stated that with a view to enable the members to reach an amicable arrangement and settlement of disputes between them, the members of the family were advised to ...
Ar. A. Shenbaga Nadar and P.V.P. Balasubramania Nadar Vs. the State of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC81(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessees are dealers in automobiles. For the year 1962-63, they furnished a taxable turnover of Rs. 21,44,810.74 after claiming exemption on a turnover of Rs. 74,307.50 at 7 per cent., being the amount relating to the fixing of bodies on chassis. The assessing officer, however, disallowed this claim of exemption. Against the order of disallowance, the assessees appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who allowed the exemption in respect of Rs. 63,057.50 and sustained the levy at 7 percent, on a turnover of Rs. 11,250 being the price of the bodies fitted to the chassis supplied by the customers. As against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessees preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.2. Before the Tribunal, it was contended by the assessees that the disputed turnover of Rs. 11,250 represented the amount realised by body-building which is a works contract not amounting to a sale. They also contended that even if the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »