Chennai Court July 1973 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.
Gopalakrishna Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Rajan Kattalai of Sri Thiyagaraja- ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ184
M. M. Ismail, J.1. The defendants in O.S. No. 16 of 1962, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, are the appellants herein. Since the facts are not in controversy and the appeal itself, was argued before us on a very narrow ground, we do not propose to elaborately refer to the pleadings of the parties and the numerous issues raised by the trial Court. Admittedly, the suit lands of an extent of 89.58 acres in Pallankoil Village belonged to the respondent herein. The said lands were leased out to the. appellants herein for five faslis, from fasli 1365 to fasli 1369 under Exhibit A-1 dated 31st December, 1955, a registered lease deed. The annual rent fixed was 711 kalams of paddy and Rs. 200 in cash. On the allegation that the appellants herein were in arrears of rent for the five faslis in different amounts, the suit was instituted for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,117.22 with a charge on the secured properties either for the whole amount, or for a sum of Rs. ...
In Re: Dr. C.S. Thiagarajan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1973
Reported in: 1974CriLJ856
ORDERGokulkrishnan, J.1. These are petitions to transfer C. C. Nos. 53 to 57 o 1971 from the file-of the Special Judge, Madurai, to the file.-of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai. These five cases and the other cases pend ing before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, relate to various Doctors, who are alleged to have issued bogus certificates for purchase of medicines etc. Mr. A. A. Selvam, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these petitions submits that if these five cases are tried along with the- number of cases pending before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, conflict of decisions may be' avoided. He also submits that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of all the parties concerned, it is better that one Judge hears all these criminal cases.2. Mr. Rajamanickam, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for Special Police Establishment opposes this application on the ground, that the trial of these five cases are almost over e...
B.N. Mathur and anr. Vs. the Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad233
1. The defendants in O. S. No. 3476 of 1964, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants herein.2. The facts are not in controversy, and the appeal itself lies within a narrow compass, and, therefore, we do not propose to refer to the pleadings of the parties in extenso in this appeal. One Mr. Fred Reist, Field representative of Pratt and Whitney Engineers Division of United Craft Export Corporation of U. S. A., applied on 10-10-1956 for a permit to bring into India with him his personal Mercedece Benz car from Manilla. The application was rejected on 28-11-1956, on the ground that a licence could not be issued for import of a built-up-car. But no appeals by the appellant herein for and on behalf of the said Fred Reist, a Customs Clearance permit dated 15-1-1957, marked as Ex. A-1 in these proceedings, was issued to him as a special case to bring his car into India. This permit imposed a condition that the car imported against the said permit should be re-exported, ...
Palanisamy Gounder and anr. Vs. Komaraswamy Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-05-1973
Reported in: AIR1975Mad50
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The petitioners are landlords and the respondent has taken out a lease from them of' an extent of 10 acres 15 cents, of which 1-99 acres are wet and the rest, garden lands. The lease was dated 17-4-1964 and the rent reserved was Rs. 1000 per annum payable by the respondent by 15th Purattasi every year. The Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Coimbatore, has found that the petitioners did not own lands in excess of the extent mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. Nor have they been found to pay income-tax The Authorised Officer has also found that the petitioners are qualified to ask for resumption under Section 4-A (1), But, at the hearing before the authority, the respondent made an offer to pay contractual rent and as a result the petition for resumption of one-half of the lands covered by the lease was dismissed. To revise this order, this petition has been filed.2. The petition initially came up befo...
Kuppuswami Mudaliar and Sons Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC6(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessee was assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the assessment year 1963-64 on a turnover of Rs. 8,515 at 10 per cent. The assessing authority took the view that the assessee is not entitled to the concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of the Act, as the inter-State sales are not to registered dealers.2. The assessee questioned the rate of tax before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but without success. His appeal before the Tribunal also did not succeed. Hence the assessee has come before this Court.3. We find that the ground on which the assessee's claim for concessional rate of tax is rejected is that his inter-State sales were not to registered dealers. It is not in dispute that the assessee had produced C forms from the purchasing dealers. But the C form declarations have not been accepted on the ground that the purchasing dealers were not registered dealers on the dates of sales.4. In this case, the assessee has despatched the good...
Devi and Co., Rayavaram, Represented by Partner A.C.R.M. Arunachalam C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1973
Reported in: (1974)1MLJ19
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. Confronted with a demand under the Revenue Recovery Act for the payment of Rs. 3,733-50 said to be payable by the petitioners under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1962, the petitioners have come up to this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said notice as also the notice dated 16th July, 1971 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry States, who independently requested the Collector to recover the arrears urgently under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioners' case is that they are stainless steel merchants with head office at Rayavaram in Tiruchirapalli District and with two branches, one at Karaikudi in Ramanathapuram District and the other at Valayapatti in Tiruchirapalli District. According to the petitioners, at no time there were 20 or more employees who were regularly appointed by the petitioners-firm for purposes of their trade. No doubt seasonal casual labour was inducted into the b...
Ghourinissa and ors. Vs. S.J. Kirmani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1973
Reported in: AIR1974Mad191
Ismail, J.1. The defendants in O. S. No. 3077 of 1964 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras are the appellants herein. The suit was instituted by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,478/- made up of the principal of Rs. 5,400/- and interest of Rs.988/-. The respondent herein is the brother-in-law of one Ghulam Mohideen alias Mahboob Basha, who died in 1962. According to the respondent, during the period from 25-6-1958 to 15-9-1958 he advanced moneys amounting to Rs. 6,000 to the deceased, that the deceased had paid only a sum of Rs. 600/- on 24-2-1959 and that the balance remains outstanding. It is on the basis of this allegation the suit was instituted for the recovery of the amount mentioned above out of the assets of the deceased in the hands of the appellant herein, the first appellant being the widow of the deceased and appellants 3 to 4 being his children. The suit was instituted on 25-7-1964. Consequently, on the face of it, the suit was barred by limita...
Ratna Cafe Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1973
Reported in: [1974]33STC39(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The question that arises in this case is as to whether the estimate of the turnover is justified. The assessee, who is running a coffee hotel, reported a taxable turnover of Rs. 7,19,025.09 for the assessment year 1964-65. The assessing authority did not accept the correctness of the accounts and added 20 per cent to the book turnover and this resulted on a turnover of Rs. 1,43,814.64 being added to the reported turnover. There was an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but without success. On a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the purchase account of the assessee is to be accepted as there is no reason to assume that any of the purchases has been suppressed. As regards the sales account, the Tribunal found that all the pay in-slips have not been preserved. It was, however, of the view that the issue of the pay-in-slips for amounts exceeding Rs. 3 alone is insisted by the rules, that the assessee is thus, under no o...
State of Madras Vs. Sheik Ismail and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-02-1973
Reported in: [1974]34STC464(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. The assessees in this case are manufacturers of beedies, under the trade name of 'Bavutta'. For the assessment year 1963-64 they reported total and taxable turnovers of Rs. 4,19,122.39 and Rs. 3,284 50 respectively under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The assessing authority after examining their accounts, took the view that they had actually sold beedi leaves, thread, etc., to the various contractors to the extent of Rs. 67,782.85. He, therefore, held that the said turnover is liable to tax at 2 per cent under the Act. The assessees however objected to the said proposal stating that the supply of beedi leaves to the contractors cannot amount to a sale, that, in fact, the supply was made along with the tobacco mixture for the purpose of rolling them into beedies, and that though in the contract between the assessees and the contractors, they referred to the supplies of beedies as one of sale, there was in fact no sale at all. The assessing authority, however, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›