Chennai Court April 1973 Judgments
Muthiah Vs. Michael and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad237
1. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the judgment of Alagiriswami, J., dismissing S.A. No. 85 of 1965, is questioned.2. The first defendant in the suit is the appellant before us. The property in dispute is an agricultural land measuring about 70 cents in extent. The second defendant in the suit is the father of the plaintiff who filed the suit for declaration of his title and for possession of the property.3. The plaintiff had left India for Ceylon while he was young. The land in question was in the physical possession of his father, the second defendant in the suit. While the plaintiff was in Ceylon, the second defendant sold the property to the first defendant (appellant before us) under the sale deed Ex. B-1 dated 24-5-1943. In this sale deed, the second defendant described himself as Michael, son of Royappa. As a matter of fact, the second defendant's name is Thaveethu though his father's name Royappa. Michael is the name of the plaintiff. As the property was standing in the name of ...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. Raman and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC1(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case, dealer in scrap iron, during the assessment year 1964-65 purchased condemned railway coaches sold in auction by the railway department and also components of Nissen huts from the Director of Supplies and Disposals, Madras, also sold in auction. He later dismantled the condemned railway coaches as also the Nissen huts and sold the resultant timber and iron materials in bulk. The assessing authority proposed to assess the entire turnover of the assessee's business of Rs. 1,99,411.32 as the first sale of scrap. The assessee's contention was that the sale by the railway department and the Director of Supplies and Disposals of the condemned coaches and the Nissen huts should be considered as first sale of scraps and that his sale should be treated as second sale in scrap not liable to tax. The assessing authority overruled the contention of the assessee and assessed the said turnover as representing first sales of scrap. There was an appeal to the ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. Champion Motor Works
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC338(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee in this case has been undertaking the body-building works on chassis provided by the customers. The assessing authority for the assessment year 1965-66 determined the total taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs. 1,98,010.35 as against the reported taxable turnover of Rs. 7,250 by adopting the figures disclosed in the books and applied the rate of tax applicable to sales of bus or lorry bodies. The assessing authority also found that a turnover of Rs. 31,780.50 out of the total turnover determined had not been disclosed in the returns and, therefore, a penalty of Rs. 3,178 for not disclosing that turnover in the returns was levied.2. As against the said assessment, the assessee went in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who upheld the assessment order as well as the levy of penalty. There was a further appeal to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the assessee not only questioned the assessment on merits but also questioned the propriety of ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesan Vs. Neelayathakshiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad203
1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 94 of 1963 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore is the appellant herein. One Govindaraja Gounder had three sons by name Bhoovarahasami, Dhanapal and Janardhanan. Dhanapal died in 1944 leaving behind his widow, the third defendant, and two sons, fourth defendant and the plaintiff. Janardhanan also died leaving behind his widow the 5th defendant, as well as the only son, the 6th defendant in the suit. Bhhoovarahasami sold the suit properties under Ex. B-1 dated 27-1-1945 to one Natesa Iyer for Rs.19,000. That deed was executed by Bhoovarahasami for himself, as father and guardian of his son, the 2nd defendant, and as guardian of his nephews, the 4th defendant, the plaintiff and the 6th defendant, who were all minors on the date of Ex. B-1. After this the 3rd defendant as the next friend of the plaintiff and the 4th defendant instituted O. S. 81 of 1950 on the file of the District Court, South Arcot, for partition of the family prope...
Tag this Judgment!A.R. Balakrishnan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]96ITR469(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. One Balakrishnan was originally a member of a Hindu undivided family along with the father and brothers, The saidHindu undivided family owned business of the 'Balakrishna Mills'. There was a partition in the said family in 1946, and after this partition the family business was converted into a private limited company. The shareholders of the said private limited company were the members of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family, the total number of equity shares being 3,601, held by them as follows :A. H. S. Ramaswamy (Father) 700 shares A. H. S. R. Rukmani Ammal (Mother) 101 ' A. R, Balakrishnan 700A. R. Ramakrishnan 700 ,,A. R. Radhakrishnan 700A. R. Rathinam 7002. The father, Ramaswamy, was the first managing director of the company as per Article 93 of the articles of association. After his death in 1951, his eldest son, Balakrishnan, was elected as the managing director on September 30, 1952. The shareholding of Balakrishnan, his mother and brothers after the death o...
Tag this Judgment!Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC350(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner was assessed for the year 1964-65 on a total taxable turnover of Rs. 2,75,96,063.55 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner challenging the assessment in so far as it related to a turnover of Rs. 2,38,472, which it claimed to be sales in the course of import and hence not taxable under the said Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner heard the appeal on 1st August, 1966, and 16th August, 1966. By that time the decision of the Supreme Court in Khosla and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1966] 17 S.T.C. 473, was rendered in January, 1966. It is said, the assessee wanted to take advantage of the said decision and question the assessment in relation to another turnover of Rs. 30,00,000 and odd. When the petitioner approached the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, it was informed that final orders had been passed in the appeal. Therefore, the assessee was not able to fi...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. P. Natesan and Company Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC115(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case claimed exemption from assessment under the Madras General Sales Tax Act on a turnover of Rs. 50,628.06 in the assessment year 1964-65 on the ground that the said sum represented the excise duty paid on the goods sold by him. The said claim for exemption was negatived by the assessing authority on the ground that the excise duty had been paid not by the assessee, but by his principal and, therefore, the benefit of exemption was not available to the assessee who had not paid the excise duty himself. The matter was taken to the Tribunal which, relying on the decision of this court in Ramalakshmana and Co. v. State of Madras [1968] 21 S.T.C. 35, wherein it was held that an agent was entitled to claim the benefit of exemption of the excise duty paid on the goods sold even if such excise duty had been paid by the principal and that whatever exemption was available to the principal was automatically available to the agent, held that the claim for exe...
Tag this Judgment!Chiranjilal Daga Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: [1975]35STC214(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to a turnover of Rs. 44,355.95 taxed at 2 per cent, which is claimed by the assessee as not liable to be taxed on the ground that it relates to second and subsequent inter-State sales which are exempt under Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act.2. The assessee is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act dealing in paints, turpentine, etc. For the year 1963-64 the assessee returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 545.90. The assessing authority, however, after a check of the accounts of the assessee, determined the taxable turnover as Rs. 64,065.02. In so doing, the assessing authority disallowed the assessee's claim for exemption in relation to the turnover of Rs. 44,355.95 said to relate to second and subsequent inter-State sales coming under Section 6(2)(b) of the Act, as being sales by transfer of documents of title while the goods were in movement from one State to another. The assessee in support of his claim for exempti...
Tag this Judgment!P.K. Unni Kumar Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ377
ORDERK.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. The petitioner seeks to question the correctness or propriety of the order of Court of Session, Chingleput, confirming the convictions of the petitioner for offences under Section 3 (1). Section 4 (1), Section 5 (1)(a). Section 6 (1) and Section 7 (2)(b) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956) and the varying terms of imprisonment awarded against the petitioner.2. P. W. 7. K. P. Ramachandran, is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. St. Thomas Mount, and a Special Officer under the aforesaid Act He appears to have received information on 20-7-1970 that the accused-petitioner is conducting a brothel in his house at No. B, Second Lane, M, K. N. Road. Alandur. At about 8-30 p. m. P. W. 7 received a specific in-formation that a teen seed girl had been brought by the accused petitioner and was kept in the aforesaid premises for the purpose of prostitution.3. P. W. 1. Jayaraman. is a Councillor of the Alandur Munic...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesan Alias Padmanabhan Vs. Neelayathakshiammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ495
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 94 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore is the appellant herein. One Govindaraja Goundar had three sons by name Bhoovarahaswami, Dhanapal and Janardhana. Dhanapal died in 1944 leaving behind his widow the third defendant, and two sons, fourth defendant and the plaintiff. Janardhana also died leaving behind his widow the 5th defendant, as well as the only son, the sixth defendant in the suit. Bhoovarahaswami sold the suit properties under Exhibit B-1 dated 27th January, 1945 to one Natesa Iyer for Rs. 19,000. That deed was executed by Bhoovarahaswami for himself, as father and guardian of his son, the second defendant, and as guardian of his nephews, the fourth defendant, the plaintiff and the sixth defendant, who were all minors on the date of Exhibit B-1. After this the third defendant as the next friend of the plaintiff and the fourth defendant instituted O.S. No. 81 of 1950 on the file of the District Cour...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »