Chennai Court September 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.
V.T. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. P.S. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Mad313; (1973)1MLJ316
ORDER1. This petition is filed by one Veerappa Chettiar, respondent in E. A. 479 of 1971, against the order of the Subordinate Judge. Devakottai directing ratable distribution of the assets in court between him and the petitioner in E. A. 479 of 1971.2. The petitioner herein filed the suit O. S. No. 1 of 1970 in the Sub-Court. Devakottai obtained a decree and brought the property to sale. The property was sold on 14-6-1971. On that day itself a sum of Rs. 1425 was deposited in court and the balance of Rupees 4275 was deposited on 25-6-1971. The sale was confirmed in favor of the auction purchaser on 17-7-1971.3. The respondent herein filed the suit O. S. 581 of 1970 against the same judgment-debtor as in O. S. 1 of 1970 in the District Munsif Court of Melur and obtained a decree on 18-1-1971. He got the decree transferred to the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, on 10-6-1971. He took out an execution application and had the property attached on 23-6-1971. He applied for ratable distri...
A. Sanjeevi Naidu Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC377(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner in this case was assessed for the assessment year 1968-69 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in respect of sales of petroleum products dealt with by him. Before the assessment order was passed, the petitioner was called upon to file his objections, but he did not file his objections and requested for further time for filing the same. The assessing authority proceeded to make the assessment to the best of his judgment on 11th April, 1972, without giving the petitioner further time for filing his objections. The assessment order as well as the demand notice based on the same was sent by registered post on 22nd April, 1972, to the petitioner. But the same was returned unserved by the postal authorities on 2nd May, 1972, with the endorsement 'not found'. Thereafter service was effected by affixture in the place of business of the petitioner. Then steps were taken to recover the amount due as per the assessment order and the demand notice by att...
The State of Madras Vs. Dr. Sathu V. Narayanaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC522(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. These cases relate to three assessment years 1959-60, 1961-62 and 1962-63 and arise out of a common judgment rendered by the Tribunal. The respondent who is the same in all these three cases is an ayurvedic medical practitioner and he has been selling medicines and medicinal oils as also tooth-powder with the name (sic). The taxes and the penalty in respect of each of the years levied by the assessing authority are set out below :___________________________________________________________Assessment Taxable Tax levied Penalty leviedyear turnover___________________________________________________________1959-60 254.46 15.27 22.911960-61 15,834.16 335.68 503.921961-62 31,644.34 670.86 1,006.291962-63 31,199.34 661.39 992.09___________________________________________________________2. The assessing officer took the view that the sales of the above articles by the respondent are liable to sales tax and, therefore, proceeded to assess the respondent on the basis of his best j...
State of Madras Vs. Harshkant S. Mehta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: [1973]31STC365(Mad)
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. The assessee in these cases is a dealer in industrial diamonds. Taking the view that industrial diamonds would fall under item 30 of Schedule I of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), the assessing authority determined the taxable turnover of the assessee for the year 1960-61 at Rs. 6,000 and for the year 1962-63 at Rs. 5,600 and brought the said turnovers to tax at 3 per cent. single point. The assessing authority also levied a penalty of Rs. 270 for the year 1960-61 and Rs. 252 for the year 1962-63 under Section 12(3) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had not submitted his turnover for the years in question.2. The assessee went in appeal and the appellate authority affirmed the assessment on the turnovers in question for the two years but reduced the penalty from Rs. 270 to Rs. 135 for the assessment year 1960-61 and from Rs. 252 to Rs. 126 for the assessment year 1962-63. There were further appeals to the Tribunal and the...
The Copra Producers and Crushers Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. the Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: [1973]32STC458(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner in this case is a co-operative society. It entered into an agreement dated 21st September, 1962, with the State Trading Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the corporation) which had a bulk import licence to import on the latter's behalf copra from Ceylon and distribute the same to crushers in Kerala State, who were called allottees and who were registered with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. The list of allottees with the quantity allotted to each of them was given in annexure 1 to the said agreement. The petitioner, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, had to notify each allottee his allocation from time to time and require him to indicate the quality of copra, the pattern of delivery and his preference, if any, as to the foreign supplier. The petitioner has to import copra from time to time in accordance with the agreement entered into with the State Trading Corporation and distribute it to the allottees as per...
Manggai Achi Through Her Husband and Power of Attorney Agent M.P.R. Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ128
ORDERS. Maharajan, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram, granting, at the instance of the plaintiff, an ex parte injunction restraining the appellant from taking delivery of possession of certain properties which she had purchased in Court auction in execution of a mortgage decree obtained against the plaintiff's father. Before discussing the questions involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set forth briefly the background to the dispute between the parties. Sundaram Chettiar, the undivided father of Asokan, the plaintiff, who got the ex parte injunction in the Court below, purchased a cinema theatre at Rajapalayam. At the time of the purchase he borrowed from one Chockalingam, the husband of the appellant, Mangai Achi, a sum of Rs. 50,000 for making up the sale price. He also mortgaged the theatre for Rs. 50,000 on 19th May, 1958, in favour of Chockalingam Chettiar. Subsequently, on 21st July, 1959, he granted a...
A. Graham and Brothers Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1972
Reported in: [1973]91ITR412(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner was a partnership firm. The partners of the firm were one A. Greha Durai and his three brothers, who were the sons of one P. Iya Nadar. The partnership was evidenced by a partnership deed dated March 21, 1960. For the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, the partnership firm applied for registration under the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, and the same was granted. But, for the assessment year 1962-63, which is the year now in dispute, the firm did not apply for registration. But the partnership was continued. On April 1, 1963, the partnership was dissolved. For the assessment year 1962-63, the four partners submitted four separate applications for composition of agricultural income-tax. Since the partnership was in existence during the assessment year, they were asked to submit a single composition application for all the lands. The assessee-firm replied on May 4, 1962, stating that the partners were not making their applications in their capacity a...
Kumbakonam Bank Ltd. (Now Kumbakonam City Union Bank Ltd.) Vs. Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1972
Reported in: [1973]92ITR302(Mad)
RAMASWAMI J. - The petitioner-bank is a public limited company deriving income from interest on securities, business in banking and from other sources. For the assessment year 1962-63, the bank received a sum of Rs. 5,476 towards interest on the following securities issued by the Mysore Government.1. The Mysore Government 4% conversion loan 1953-63.2. The Mysore 3% loan 1956-61.The assessee-bank claimed rebate on this entire amount under section 86(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. But the Income-tax Officer deducted a sum of Rs. 4,089 as the proportionate interest on the money borrowed for the purpose of the investment and proportionate expenses in realising the said interest on the securities and arrived at the net income under this source at Rs. 1,387. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and reiterated his contention that section 86(i) permitted rebate on the entire sum of interest received on tax-free securities and it did not restrict the relief ...
In Re: Sreerangayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ231
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. The appellant was charged with an offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in that she on 9th April, 1971 between 8 and 10 a.m. committed murder of five of her children aged between 11 and 1 1/2 years and lastly with an offence under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, in that she at about the same time in the course of the same transaction attempted to commit suicide by jumping into a well belonging to one Maria Pillai in Shanmugha Nagar, Dadagapatti, Salem District.2. The prosecution case is as follows: P.W. 6 Perumal, the husband of the appellant (accused) married the accused about 14 years ago. They had five children viz.: (1) Madesh, a boy aged about 11 years, (2) Pappathi, a girl aged seven years, (3) Mani, a girl aged six years, (4) Devan, a boy aged about 4 1/2 years, and (5) a female child aged about 1 1/2 years (not named). The husband and wife were living with their children in a rented house belonging to Raja Mudaliar in Shanmugha ...
A. Seshan and anr. Vs. A.V. Venkataramanasawamy Alias A.V. Venkatarama ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1972
Reported in: (1973)1MLJ422
M.M. Ismail, J.1. One Ananthanarayana Iyer, who himself had no issue, had three brothers by name Ramaswami Iyer, Sitarama Iyer and Venkatasi bramani. One of the sons of Ramaswami Iyer is Krishnaswami. The only son of Sitarama Iyer is Sushan and the only son of Venkatasubramani is Venkataramanaswami. The parties who are really interested in these two Second Appe is are Seshan who is the appellant in both the appeals and Venkataramanaswami and Krishnaswami and they will be referred to by their names in the course of this judgment. Ananthanarayana Iyer was a trustee of three temples, namely, Kasivisweswaraswami Temple, Varadarajaperumal Temple and Ganesha Baladanday thapani Temple. In respect of these temples, he had been performing certain festivals out of tasdik allowance given by the Government. Finding that the tasdik allowance was insufficient for the performance of the festivals, he was spending Rs. 200 every year out of his property for the performance of those festivals. With a vi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »