Chennai Court May 1973 Judgments
The State of Madras Vs. Bombay Ammonia Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC364(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessees are dealers in refrigerators, spare parts, etc. For the year 1964-65, they reported a total taxable turnover of Rs. 6,41,031.77 to the assessing authority under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, in their monthly returns. The assessing authority checked the accounts of the assessee and determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 6,74,742.65 on 31st January, 1966, by making an addition of Rs. 33,710.88 to the reported turnover.2. The assessees did not prefer any appeal against the said order of assessment. However, on 7th January, 1967, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Madras Division, issued a notice to the assessees proposing to levy a penalty of Rs. 5,056 on the undisclosed turnover of Rs. 33,710.88, under Section 12(3) of the Act in exercise of his suo motu powers of revision under Section 32 of the Act. The assessees filed their objections on 23rd January, 1967, questioning the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to levy the penalty. I...
Tag this Judgment!Amina Bi and ors. Vs. Khamurunnisa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ314
V.V. Raghavan, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The above second appeal arises put of O.S. No. 347 of 1965 filed for declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for possession. The above suit was tried by the trial Court along with O.S. No. 612 of 1965 filed by the first defendant in O.S. No. 347 of 1965 for redemption of a simple mortgage executed by the plaintiff to secure a loan of Rs. 1,000 on the security of the house and ground covered by O.S. No. 347 of 1965. The two suits were heard together. I shall now take up he allegations in O.S. No. 347 of 1965 out of which the above second appeal has arisen. The plaintiff claims title under a sale deed dated 3rd April, 1964 executed by one Fatima Bi in her favour and the allegation in the plaint is that the first defendant was occupying the 'B' schedule property which is a portion of the 'A' schedule property as a tenant under her vendor (Fatima Bi) from 1961 on a monthly rent of Rs. 10. that the said first defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Muriyattu Nakaranna Krishna Dass Narayana Brahmananda Dheerthar Peria ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad167
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 80 of 1965 and the first respondent in the above second appeal. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present application are as follows : The suit properties situate in Arudesom Village belonged to the plaintiff's Matom and subject to mortgage in favour of various persons. The first defendant is the Panchayat Union and the second defendant is the President of the Panchayat. The third defendant is a road contractor and the fourth defendant is the Union Commissioner, Munchira Panchayat Union in which Arudesom Panchayat is included. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 5,500 as damages on the ground that the defendants have unlawfully and without obtaining the consent of the plaintiff opened a roadway along portions of the suit properties, that such portions are wrongfully taken and over which the road has been laid; thereby the defendants had completely destroyed the plaintiff's ...
Tag this Judgment!Muriyattu Nakaranna Krishna Dass Narayana Bhrahmananda Dheerthar Peria ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ461
ORDERV.V. Raghavan, J.1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 80 of 1965 and the first respondent in the above second appeal. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present application are as follows. The suit properties situate in Amdesom Village belonged to the plaintiff's Matom and subject to mortgage in favour of various persons. The first defendant is the Panchayat Union and the second defendant is the President of the Panchayat. The third defendant is a road contractor and the fourth defendant is the Union Commissioner, Munchira Panchayat Union in which Arudesom Panchayat is included. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 5,500 as damages on the ground that the defendants have unlawfully and without obtaining the consent the plaintiff opened a road way over long portions of the suit properties, that such portions are wrongfully taken over and the road has been laid and thereby the defendants have completely destroyed th...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. M.P. Rajan and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC256(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The assessee in this case claimed exemption in respect of its sales of copy note-books both in relation to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act as also under the local Sales Tax Act on the ground that the State Government have exempted the sales of such note-books in pursuance of a G. 0. issued under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This claim was negatived by the assessing authority on the ground that the proper notification to be applied in this case is the notification under G. 0. No. 976, Revenue, dated 28th March, 1959, as amended by G. O. No. 4725, Revenue, dated 30th October, 1961, issued under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and that as per the said G. O. it is only 'reading books including text-books' that are exempted from the liability under the Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority therefore proceeded to assess the turnover relating to the sales of the copy note-books.2. There were appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. E.A.N. Meerakasim Carnatic Seat Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1973
Reported in: [1973]32STC463(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. These cases arise in relation to the same assessee, but for two different years. In the two years, the assessee has been taxed on its sales of cycle seat covers treating them as sales of accessories to cycles covered by item 38 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessee's contention that the seat covers sold by him cannot be treated as accessories to cycles and as such the sales are subject to multipoint tax alone was rejected by the assessing authority. This view has not been accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken the view that cycle seat covers which are manufactured by the assessee and sold cannot be treated as accessories or parts of bicycle so as to bring them within item 38 of the First Schedule to the Act and, therefore, the goods are liable to only multi-point tax.2. Revenue contends before us that the decision of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this court in T. C. No. 107 of 1971 (Khet...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanalakshmi and Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC186(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The disputed turnovers in this case are (1) a sum of Rs. 1,10,836.95 said to represent the sale price of the forest produce and (2) a sum of Rs. 37,314.05 said to be the sale price of bamboos supplied by the assessee to M/s. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd., during the assessment year 1964-65.2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business as forest contractors having its head office at Anthiyur and a branch at Mettur. It has taken in auction the lease of bamboo coupes from the forest department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The lease taken was for one year ending with 31st of March, and the lease amounts paid are termed as kist. According to the terms and conditions of the lease, the lessee has to deliver a particular quantity of bamboos collected from the coupes to M/s. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd., Pallipalayam, and the balance of the bamboos alone can be disposed of by the contractor. So far as the bamboos delivered to M/s. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. is concer...
Tag this Judgment!Anthony Servai Vs. Pethi Naicker and ors. and Kulandama Naicker (Died) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ19
N. S. Ramaswami, J.1. The question that arises in the two Second Appeals and the Letters Patent Appeal is one and the same, viz., whether the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Act, or the textual Hindu Law, which was in force prior to the coming into force of the Act, have to be applied for determining the reversiorers in a case where the last male prior to the coming into force of the Act, died after the coming into force of the Act.2. The two second appeals arise out of Original Suit No. 308 of 1965 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Dindigul, which is one filed by the two plaintiffs in that suit as reversioners of one Pethi Naicker, a minor, who died in the year 1944, for the recovery of possession of the properties of the said Pethi. On Pethi's death in the year 1944, his mother Pap-pammal succeeded to his estate as a limited owner and she alienated the several items of suit properties. The property described in the A sch...
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Manufacturers and ors. Vs. Minerals and Metals Trading Corporatio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1973
Reported in: (1973)2MLJ389
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions a writ of mandamus is prayed for directing the Union of India (2nd respondent) to fix the price of stainless steel sheets at which the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited (1st respondent) can sell to the petitioners as per the release orders already issued by the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the writ petitions the lapsing of the sale notes issued in favour of the writ petitioners by the 1st respondent has been stayed. The common but general facts in all these writ petitions are as follows.2. The petitioners are manufacturers of hospital and surgical equipments and are small scale industrial units classified as actual users which is a common terminology used under the laws, rules and regulations governing import trade control and import licensing. The petitioners secured their last licence for the import of stainless steel sheets for the year 1969. For the financial year 1970-71, the import poli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›