Chennai Court September 1974 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.
Panchayat Board, Vettuvakottai Vs. V. Lakshmanan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad216
Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. On the short ground that the appellant-panchayat did not conform to the statutory prescription as laid down in Notification No. 33 made under the powers of the rule making authority under sub-sections (2), (4) and (5) of S. 86 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, the absolute rule issued by Ramakrishnan, J. has to be assented to.2. The short facts are -- the appellant-panchayat admittedly wanted to utilise a grazing poramboke for the purpose of planting fruit bearing trees thereon and also for the purpose of raising fodder for the cattle which fodder could be marketed later by resale to the owners of such cattle in the Panchayat. While passing this resolution, the Panchayat did not follow the prescriptions in notification No. 33 with which we shall presently refer to. One of the residents of the village filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the orders of the District Collector of Tanjoore dated 1-8-1963 who in turn confirmed the order of the Revenue ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seth Manicklal Fomra (by L.Rs.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1974
Reported in: [1975]99ITR470(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the following question has been referred : ' Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in directing that the sum of Rs. 87,595 should be excluded from the assessment made by the order dated March 7, 1967 '2. The assessee was carrying on business in cloth at Madurai and a business in purchase and sale of sugar in Madras. For the assessment year 1961-62, corresponding to the previous year 1960, the Income-tax Officer determined the income from the cloth business on the basis of the books of account at Rs. 8,204. Finding that regular books of account had not been kept for the business of sugar, he estimated the income from this source at Rs. 15,000. Accordingly, the total income was thus determined at Rs. 23,204 by an order dated February 14, 1964. 3. Aggrieved by the estimate made b...
In Re: Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1199
ORDERPaul, J.1. The Revision Petitioner challanges his conviction by the Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate, Traffic Mobile Court, Madras, for an offence under Rule 323 of the Motor Vehicles Rules read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 30/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week, meted put to him for the said offence. The petitioner was convicted on his own admission and plea before the Special Honorary Presidency Magistrate, who presided over the Traffic Mobile Court, which was constituted under G. O. Ms. No. 901 Home dated 13-3-1966. That Government Order shows that the Government sanctioned the constitution of the Mobile Court for the trial exclusively of traffic offences in the Madras City.2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, has framed rules for the working of the Traffic Mobile Court, Madras, with the approval of the Government of Tamil Nadu, in exerci...
P.P. Kannaiah Chetty Vs. Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1974
Reported in: [1976]105ITR622(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The petitioner was a partner in a firm of partnership called Messrs. Pattu Padmanabha Chetti and Sons. The partnership firm was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 and income-tax to the tune of Rs. 3,43,195 was due from the partnership firm. The firm was an unregistered partnership and there is no dispute that the petitioner was a partner. This writ petition has been filedagainst the garnishee order issued by the Tax Recovery Officer to the Cement Marketing Company of India restraining them from paying any amount due to the petitioner from the company until further orders.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the income-tax was due only from the partnership firm, that he had not been given any separate notice demanding payment of the tax due and that therefore, the garnishee order issued against the Cement Marketing Company of India is illegal. The petitioner does not dispute that the notice of demand was issued aga...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1974
Reported in: [1975]98ITR540(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court under Section 26(1) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 17(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, as amended by the Gift-tax (Amendment) Act, 1962, would not apply to the levy of penalty in this case?'2. The assessee made a gift of certain properties to his sister on July 14, 1961. The gift attracted tax liability and the gift-tax return was due on June 30, 1962. But the return was actually filed only on October 22, 1963. The Gift-tax Officer completed the gift-tax assessment on March 31, 1964 and as he found that the assessee had no reasonable cause for not filing the return within the time allowed under the Act, he initiated penalty proceedings under Section 17(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 2,605.3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Gift-tax who reduced the ...
Bansilal Fomra and ors. Vs. the Thadava Co-operative Agricultural and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1974
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ39
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The appellants in both the appeals are the plaintiffs respectively in O.S. Nos. 139 of 1966 and 3527 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the City Civil Judge, Madras. The plaintiffs were unsuccessful in their attempt to recover damages with interest as against Thandava Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Society Limited, Tuni in Andhra Pradesh which is a Society which was manufacturing and distributing sugar to its customers. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 139 of 1966 claims that he entered into a contract with the defendant through Messrs. Aries Sugar Agencies Limited, Madras, for the purchase of 'Tuni' Sugar, four waggons (880 bags) from the 1962-63 crops of sugar manufactured by the defendant at Rs. 106 per bag, f.o.r. Tuni. The contract was so entered into on or about 7th January, 1963 under Exhibit A-3. A sum of Rs. 4,400 was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff-appellant through Messrs. Aries Sugar Agencies Limited. According to the plaintiff, he was re...
Annamalai and Company, by Its Partner S.S. Sundaram Chettiar Vs. Sital ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ337
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The tenant who was unsuccessful in all the three Courts below is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent-landlady filed a petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for eviction of the petitioner from her premises No. 29 , Vaduga Kaval Kooda Street, Madurai Town, which was purchased by her on 22nd December, 1967 on the ground that the same is required for the purpose of residence and business of her adult married son. The facts as found by the Courts below are these. The respondent-landlady was living in a rented house with her husband. Her son with his wife and children was living in a separate rented house in door No. 3, Mahal First Street, Madurai and was also carrying on money lending business in the said premises. Besides the house in question the respondent also owned another house in Goods Shed Street, Madurai which was also under tenancy to a third party. She filed an application f...
V.R. Subbaih, Murgun Trading Agency Vs. Assistant Collector of Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1974
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT227(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and other material papers filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K.C. Rajappa, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order :2. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, namely, the Asst. Collector of C.E., I.D.O. Sivakasi and the Inspector of C.E., Prev. Group. Office of the Collr. of C.E., New Delhi to release the goods and hand over to the petitioner 1000 bundles of safety matches seized on 29.08.72 at Delhi Lahori gate station and now lying with the second respondent, valued at Rs. 34.000/- under the provisions of C.E. Act and Rules 1944.3. The petitioner contends that he purchased these matches from different manufacturers in Sivakasi and despatched then) to one M/s, Mahavir Trading Corporation at Delhi, pursuant to a contract entered into between them, that the said 1000 bundles were seized a...
The Management of Hindu Vs. Principal Labour Court and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1974
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ439Mad
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. In exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 9 of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Central Act 45 of 1955), as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Central Government constituted a Wage Board by a notification dated November 12, 1963, for the purpose of fixing or revising the rates of wages in respect of working journalists in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Wage Board consisted of representatives of the employers in relation to newspaper establishments, working journalists and independent persons. On receipt of the recommendations of the Wage Board, the Government of India made an order under Section 12 of the Act and it was notified on 27-10-1967. By virtue of the provisions of Section 13, on the coming into operation of the order of the Central Government under Section 12, every working journalist became entitled to be paid by his employer wages at the rates specified ...
R. Ramachandra Naidu Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1974
Reported in: [1976]102ITR227(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Kancheepuram, the second respondent herein, and quashing the order dated January 28, 1972, made by him under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Armed with a warrant under Section 132(1), the second respondent searched the premises of the petitioner at No. 36, Kumarichetty Street, Kancheepuram, and seized out of a cash of Rs. 20,654, a sum of Rs. 15,000 and certain sale deeds and promissory notes. A notice under Section 139(2) for the assessment year 1971-72 and also a notice under Section 132(5) read with Rule 112A were served on the petitioner on November 10, 1971, for the hearing of the case on November 30, 1971. At the request of the petitioner, the hearing was adjourned to December, 1971, and later to January 20, 1972. On that date, the petitioner was represented by a chartered accountant and he pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »