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.
imperial Fertiliser and Company Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: [1972]31STC390(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The question that comes up for consideration in this case is as to whether the assessee, who is a dealer in chemical fertilisers, can be taxed on his sales of the said fertilisers. The assessee purchases different items of chemical manures and then mixes them with some organic manure as chemical fertilisers. It is not in dispute that the mixture sold by the assessee will come under item 21 of Schedule I. But the assessee has taken up the stand that as the various items of chemical manures purchased and used by him for the production of the mixture sold by him have earlier suffered tax, his sales should not be treated as first sales in chemical fertilisers and that as such his sales should not be subjected to single point tax. This contention of the assessee was negatived by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. His sales turnover of the mixture for the assessment year 1964-65 came to Rs. 3,04,761.54.2. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee con...
Govindasami Chettiar and anr. Vs. M.V.N. Kalidoss Chettiar and Sons by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ593
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. 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, Mayuram. Civil Revision Petition No. 2235 of 1971 is filed against the order of the learned District Judge of East Tharrjavur at Nagapattinam dismissirg the appeal filed by the first respondent, fifth respondent and the legal representatives of the second respondent in the main insolvency petition. Civil Revision Petition No. 2236 of 1971 is filed against the order of the learned District Judge refusing to imp.ead 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 ...
Angu Pillai Alias Kalyani Achi (Died) and ors. Vs. M.S.H. Kasiviswanat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ334
K.S. 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 No. 54 of 1961 and O.S. No. 55 of 1961) the plaintiff was the same. The plaintiff Kasiviswanathan Chettiar is the son of one Somasundaram Chettiar. Angu Pillai alias Kalyani Achi the sole defendant in O.S. No. 54 of 1961, had obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 1 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga against one Subramania Chettiar and attached certain, properties in execution of that decree. The plaintiff intervened with a claim under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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, that on the death of his mother, he as the sole, heir, became entitled to the said amount, that the amount was calculated and settled at Rs. 40,000 that...
Thiruvengada Varadachariar Alias R. Varadachari and ors. Vs. Srinivasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ266
K.S. Palaniswami, J.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 Ayyangar. The suit was laid for recovery of possession of the plaint mentioned temple called Sri Veaugopalaswami temple, Katteri, Mannargudi, and the immovable properties described in the plaint. Reliefs were sought against defendants 1 and 2 on behalf of the plaintiffs 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 litigations 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 fam...
irudayam Ammal and ors. Vs. Salayath Mary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad421
1. Defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram decreeing, in favor of the plaintiff, partition and separate possession of one-fourth share in respect of certain items of properties set forth in Schedule A appended to the plaint as well as the claim for mesne profits from 12-3-1956. The plaintiff's suit in respect of other items in the A Schedule and in respect of the entire B Schedule properties as well as the plaintiff's claim for relief of accounting prior to 12-3-1956 have been dismissed. There is no cross-appeal in respect of the portion of the plaintiff's claim disallowed.2. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Susai Udayar; defendants 5 and 6 are the sisters of the plaintiff, being the other daughters of Susai Udayar aforesaid. The first defendant Irudayammal is the widow of one Arokia Udayar the son of Susai Udayar. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the daughters of the first defendant and Arokia Udayar ...
Panchura Estate Ltd. Vs. Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1972
Reported in: [1973]87ITR698(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The above two tax cases filed by the same assessees relate to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64 respectively, and as there are common questions involved, they are dealt with together.2. In respect of the assessment year 1962-63 the assessees had claimed deduction of a sum of Rs. 2,375 on the ground that it represented bad debts and that it is an allowable expenditure under Section 5(e) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. But, that claim has been disallowed by the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal. The assessees contend before us that the said sum of Rs. 2,375 represents advances made to the labourers to be adjusted later as against their wages, and as the labourers did not turn up for work as expected nor returned the amount advanced the amounts have become bad debts. According to the assessees such amounts which have been expended for the purpose of the plantation have to be allowed as a deduction under Section 5(e) of t...
In Re: Thandavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1972
Reported in: 1973CriLJ1041
Raghavan, J.1. This reference from the Court of Sessions, Salem, convicting the accused with the extreme penalty under the law for the charge of intentionally murdering his wife Chhinnathayee at about 4-30 P. M. on 8-12-1971 at Mallagoundanvettu Kadu, Hamle.t of Thoramangalam Village by hitting her with a stone pestle on her head and cuttinc her neck with a barber's knife, and the Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1972 by the accused have been heard together.2. The prosecution case is as follows: The accused and the deceased are husband and wife and they were married 15 years ago. The deceased started a tea stall about two years ago near Mariamman Koil in Chinnappampatti Road and the accused and the deceased were looking after the tea stall. There were a large number of customers attending the tea stall for taking tea and the deceased used to talk freely with them. The accused was suspecting her fidelity and there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and his wife resulting in the ...
irudayammal and ors. Vs. Salayath Mary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1972
Reported in: (1972)2MLJ508
K.S. Ramamurti, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree, of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram decreeing, in favour of the plaintiff, partition and separate possession of one-fourth share in respect of certain items of properties set forth in schedule A appended to the plaint as well as the claim for mesne profits from 12th March, 1956. The plaintiff's suit in respect of other items in the A schedule and in respect of the entire B schedule properties as well as the plaintiff's claim for relief of accounting prior to 12th March, 1956, have been dismissed. There is no cross-appeal in respect of the portion of the plaintiff's claim disallowed.2. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Susai Udayar; defendants 5 and 6 are the sisters of the plaintiff, being the other daughters of Susai Udayar aforesaid. The first defendant Irudayammal is the widow of one Arokia Udayar, the son of Susai Udayar. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the daughters of th...
In Re: Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (East) by Partners
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ451
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. This matter comes up on the Report filed by the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee has prayed for issue of directions as to whether the claims made by certain parties in respect of security deposits they had made with the insolvent-Company are to be treated as 'trust' claims entitled to priority payment over other creditors; or whether those depositors should rank as ordinary creditors for dividend. 2. Thiru Sivaramakrishnayya, Thiru Vedantam Srinivasan and other learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the persons who had made the security deposits with the insolvent-Company, strenuously contended that those security deposits should be treated as 'trust' moneys in the hands of the insolvent-Company, and that they should be paid in priority to other creditors of the estate.3. Thiru Ratan appearing for one of the petitioning-creditors submitted that the deposits in all the cases are contractual obligations with the relationship only of a 'debtor and credit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›