Chennai Court July 1973 Judgments
In Re: A.A. Paul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ375
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The revision is against the order of the Special Judge, Madras, dismissing a petition purporting to be one under Section 251-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 126 of the Army Act. The revision petitioner is the accused in C. G. No. 15 of 1972 on the file of the Special Judge, Madras. He was formerly an army personnel in that he was the Recruiting Officer in the Army. He retired from service on 3-9-1972. A charge sheet was filed against him on 19-10-1972 for an alleged offence under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Act II of 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that he had accepted illegal gratification on 3-6-1972. On that date namely, the date on which the offence is said to have been committed, the accused was in Army service. But. as I said, he retired on 3-9-1972 and the charge sheet itself was filed subsequent to the retirement. The case was taken up for trial and six witnesses have already been examined by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Venkataramanaswamy Deity at Kothur Village by Its Trustee K. R. Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ431
P. S. Kailasam, J.1. The plaintiff Sri Venkataramanaswami Deity at Kothur by Trustee K.R. Sanjeevi Chetty is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit properties, for possession and for past and future mesne profits. According to the plaint, the suit properties originally belonged to one Nanjachari who dedicated them to the Deity and after Nanjachari's death, the villagers were managing the properties. Subsequently, N.R. Sanjeevi Chetty was appointed trustee by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. As the original deed of dedication was destroyed, the heirs of the grantor confirmed the factum of dedication by a registered deed in February, 1958. It was stated that the defendant got possession of the properties with the permission of the villagers on promise to pay rent, but she failed to may rent and started asserting her own title to the suit properties. The suit was opposed by the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Maxhemeijer Jr. (India) Private Limited, Represented by Its Managing D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ455
M. M. Ismail, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 107 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, is the appellant herein. Admittedly the suit property of an extent of 3.06 acres belonged to the partnership by name Haji M. Shaik Abdul Kader, M. S. Abdul Rahiman and Company, consisting of two partners Haji M. S. Abdul Rahiman Sahib and Haji M. S. Adam Mohideen Sahib. Haji M. S. Abdul Rahiman Sahib died on 30th April, 1958 leaving behind defendants 2 to 7 as his heirs and legal representatives. Haji M. S. Adam Mohideen Sahib died on 12th March, 1955 leaving behind defendants 8 to 13 and one Hablbma, who is not a party to these proceedings, as heirs and legal representatives. The first respondent herein claiming to have entrusted her jewels and liquid cash with the said partnership took proceedings for recovery of the same from defendants 2 to 13 herein out of the assets of the partnership in their hands. She filed a petition O.P. No. 295 of 1958, on the file o...
Tag this Judgment!Thavasikani Nadar Vs. the Election Commissioner (Principal District Mu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ44
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The proceedings in this writ petition arise out of an order passed by the District Munsif, Ambasamudram, as an Election Commissioner, constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958. An election was held to choose the Chairman of the Panchayat Union, Kalakad on, 13 th August, 1970. The petitioner and the respondent were the contestants. The respondent secured nine votes and the petitioner eleven votes. The petitioner was declared elected as the Chairman. The respondent apparently desired to file an election petition. Under the rules, an election petition had to be filed within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. The election petition was filed on 27th November, 1970, nearly three months after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. When the respondent filed such an application before the Election Commissioner and pleaded that his failure to file the election petition in time was not wilful ...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Saraswathi Vs. the Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad46
Ismail, J.1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of Ramapra-sada Rao J. D/- 3-4-1972 in W. P. No. 85 of 1972. The petitioner therein is the appellant herein. The facts are not in controversy. The appellant herein and the third respondent belong to the District Board Educational Service as Assistants in schools. According to the practice followed with reference to the rules that have been framed by the Government, pursuant to Sections 70 and 199 (2) (a) of the Madras District Boards Act, 1920, for each year, on the basis of the vacancies that are likely to arise in the post of Headmistresses, a panel would be constituted by a panel committee consisting of the President of the District Board and the Inspectress of schools. After the abolition of the District Board in the place of the President, it was the Chief Educational Officer, who was functioning and therefore the panel Committee consisted of the Chief Educational Officer and the Inspectress of schools. Admittedly the peti...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Saraswathi and Lily Isaiah Vs. the Chief Educational Officer and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ14
M.M. Ismail, J.1. W. A. No. 347 of 1972.-- The writ appeal is directed against the order of Ramaprasada Rao, J., dated 3rd April, 1972 in W.P. No. 85 of 1972. The petitioner therein is the appellant herein. The facts are not in controversy. The appellant herein and the third respondent belong to the District Board Educational Service as Assistants in schools. According to the practice followed with reference to the rules that have been framed by the Government pursuant to Sections 70 and 199 (2) (a) of the Madras District Boards Act, 1920 for each year, on the basis of the vacancies that are likely to arise in the post of Headmistresses, a panel would be constituted by a Panel Committee consisting of the President of the District Board and the Inspectors of Schools. After the abolition of the District Boards in the place of the President, it was the Chief Educational Officer, who was functioning and therefore the Panel Committee consisted of the Chief Educational Officer and the Inspec...
Tag this Judgment!India Pistons Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC472(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. These two cases relate to the same assessee in relation to two different assessment years, 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessee, in the course of the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, claimed before the assessing authority that an amount of Rs. 3,61,986.79 for the year 1964-66 and Rs. 33,93,140.48 for the year 1965-66 should not be included in the taxable turnover as the said amounts represented discount it had granted to the purchasing dealers. The claim of the assessee was rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that what has been given by the assessee to its distributors was only a rebate or bonus and not a cash discount as contemplated under Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the assessing authority in this respect. The assessee has therefore come to this court seeking deduction of the said amounts from the taxable turnover.2. The...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. Trustees of the Port of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC135(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. These two cases relate to the same assessee and involve the same point. The assessee is the Madras Port Trust represented by its Chairman. The assessee was periodically effecting sales through M/s. Murray and Company, Auctioneers, of unclaimed and unserviceable articles. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, it has effected sales of such articles to the extent of Rs. 8,20,312.88 and Rs. 9,76,058.25 respectively. The assessing authority took the view that the sales of such articles effected by the assessee are taxable. In that view, it determined the taxable turnover of the assessee for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66 at Rs. 8,06,627.88 and Rs. 9,62,012.25 respectively after rejecting the contention of the assessee that such sales are not in the course of carrying on of a business activity as contemplated by the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the Act).2. The assessee thereafter appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commis...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Ct) Madras Div ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1973
Reported in: (1974)2MLJ336
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. These two cases relate to the same assessee and involve the same point. The assessee is the Madras Port Trust represented by its Chairman. The assessee was periodically effecting sales through M/s. Murray & Company, Auctioneers of unclaimed and unserviceable articles. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, it has effected sales of such articles to the extent of Rs. 8,20,312-88 P. and Rs. 9,76,058-25 P. respectively. The assessing authority took the view that the sales of such articles effected by the assessee are taxable. In that view it determined the taxable turnover of the assessee for the year 1964-65 and 1965-66 at Rs. 8,06,627-88 P. and Rs. 9,62,012-25 P respectively after rejecting the contention of the assessee that such sales are not in the course of carrying on of a business activity as contemplated by the provisions of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the Act).2. The Assessee thereafter appealed to the Appellate Ass...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. A. Abdul Shukoor and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1973
Reported in: [1975]35STC207(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The respondents herein are dealers in hides and skins. They had taken out a licence to deal in hides and skins under form IV for the year 1952-53. In the course of the assessment, the assessing authority fixed their taxable turnover at Rs. 4,83,615-12-1 and licensed turnover at Rs. 58,11,971-4-8. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but without success. On a further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh decision to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with reference to certain additional grounds of attack against the assessment raised by the respondents before the Tribunal. Even after the remand the Appellate Assistant Commissioner again dismissed the appeal.2. When the matter again came before the Tribunal, the dispute centred round, among other things, on a turnover of Rs. 2,34,899.74, which represented sales of tanned hides and skins effected by the respondents on behalf of non-resident dealers. The contention of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »