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.
Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. Vs. the Government of India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: AIR1975Mad217; 1984(15)ELT407(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. In this case, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash certain additional levies made on him by the respondents under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, carrying on business of manufacture of cotton textiles yarn of various counts. In respect of the yarn manufactured by the petitioner, excise duty is levied under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner was manufacturing yarn of various counts including yarn of 40 counts (English counts) equivalent to 33.9 NF (French count) during the year 1966.2. On 14-9-1966 the Supervising officer of the Central Excise department drew samples of yarn said to be 40 counts for the purpose of testing. On the day of drawal of sample, the petitioner had already packed into bales ready for clearance 69 bales of cotton yarn out of the yarn manufactured previous to 14-9-1966. The sample so drawn was 840 yards in length. The Supervising officer who to...
The Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Supply and Marketing Soci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC226(Mad)
Veeraswami, C.J.1. This batch of cases involves construction of Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessee, the Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd., was found to have a turnover of Rs. 5,30,92,979.52. Out of this turnover Rs. 3,68,34,733.11 was given exemption under Section 17 read with item 44 by an order of Government issued under that section. The taxable turnover was thus found to be Rs. 1,62,58,246.41. This turnover was subjected to tax under Section 3(1). Later, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, on a further verification of the assessment files, estimated a turnover of Rs. 9,44,156.90 to be liable to tax under Section 5 of the Act. There is no controversy that this turnover represents sales of the type comprehended by Section 5.2. What is contended for the assessee is that even so when the entire turnover of Rs. 5,30,92,979.52 was the subject-matter of assessment under Section 3(1), there is no further room for applicat...
A. Pafeeq Ahmed Sahib Vs. Istiaq Ahmed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1470
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is an application for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C. C. No. 5606 of 1973, in the court of the VIII Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras. That case is a case for the alleged offences of forgery and making use of a forged document in certain rent control proceedings and the respondent herein (tenant) is the complainant therein. His case is that on 7-3-1968, the petitioner-landlord obtained his signature in a blank sheet of paper, that subsequently he brought into existence the recitals in that sheet to show as though the respondent was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1563.77 and subsequently made use of this document In the proceedings for eviction. The petitioner contends that Section 195 (1), Criminal Procedure Code is a bar for the present proceedings because the document in question, even according to the respondent, was used in proceedings in court and that it is that court which should come forward with a complaint fo...
A. Rafeeq Ahmed Sahib Vs. Istiaq Ahmed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ4
ORDERB.S. Somasundaram, J.1. This is an application for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No. 5606 of 1973 in the Court of the VIII Presidency Magistrate., G.T., Madras. That case is a case for the alleged offences of forgery and making use of a forged document in certain rent control proceedings and the respondent herein (tenant) is the complainant therein. His case is that on 7th March, 1968, the petitioner-landlord : obtained his signature in a blank sheet of paper, that subsequently he brought into existence the recitals in that sheet to show as though the respondent was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,563-77 and subsequently made use of this document in the proceedings for eviction, The petitioner contends that Section 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a bar for the present proceedings because the document in question, even according to the respondent, was used in proceedings in Court and that it is that Court which should come forw...
Tarakshi Panchayat by Its President Vs. District Revenue Officer and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ4
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. A certain poramboke, which was vested in the Panchayat by reason of Section 86 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, was taken out by the Collector and assigned to the second respondent. That was sought to be quashed. But Ramaprasada Rao, J., declined to interfere.2. The short ground in the appeal is that there was no consultation by the Collector with the Panchayat as required by Section 86 (3). That section is clear that the Collector, after consulting the Panchayat, may, by notification, exclude from the operation of the Act any poramboke referred to in Sub-section (2). The Collector, after following the procedure, may also modify or cancel the notification. It was said on behalf of the Collector that a notice was sent to the Panchayat President, but that the latter refused to receive it. The President has sworn to an affidavit denying any such refusal. Ramaprasada Rao, J., was of the view that if the President refused, that would amount to sufficient consult...
Parry and Company Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: [1975]35STC545(Mad)
Mohan, J.1. Suit for refund of a sum of Rs. 51,954.36, being Rs. 43,659.15 with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from 18th January, 1969.2. The plaint allegations, inter alia, are as follows: The plaintiff is a dealer in engineering equipments and act on behalf of their principals, Messrs. Alfred Herbert (India) Private Limited, for goods imported under the import trade control permit issued to various customers. As the plaintiff's principals were importing and supplying the goods, the Controller of Imports permitted the customers to authorise the plaintiff's principals to import the goods on their behalf. According to the terms arrived at between the parties, the plaintiff's principals are entitled to payment of the price of the goods supplied and the sales tax in full when they presented the invoice for the goods. All such transactions are sales effected in respect of goods imported on actual user's licence obtained by the customers from the Chief Controller of Imports and Ex...
Baluchamy Vs. Srinivasan Ayyavaru
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ30
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. This is a petition by the tenant against the order of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Madurai, rejecting his application for deposit under Section 3 (3) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955.2. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent in respect of an extent of 1 acre 50 cents in Thenkarai Village of Nilakottai Taluk. For the fasli year 1381, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 610 and filed an application under Section 3 (3) (a) for recording the deposits.3. The respondent contended that the lands leased to the petitioner were double crop wet lands, that the rent payable was 20 bags of paddy and 10 bundles of straw for the first crop and 10 bags of paddy and 5 bundles of straw for the second crop. The rent for the first crop is payable in the month of Karthikai and that for the second crop it is payable in Chithrai. So far, the parties are in agreement. But the petitioner contended that for fasli 1381, due to drought con...
Parry and Company Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ318
S. Mohan, J.1. Suit for refund of a sum of Rs. 51,954.36, being Rs. 43,659-15 with interest thereon at 6 per cent. per annum from 18th January, 1969.2. The plaint allegations inter alia are as follows:The plaintiff is a dealer in Engineering Equipments and act on behalf of their principals, Messrs. Alfred Herbert (India) Private Limited for goods imported under the Import Trade Control permit issued to various customers. As the plaintiff's principals were importing and supplying the goods, the Controller of Imports permitted the customers to authorise the plaintiff's principals to import the goods on their behalf. According to the terms arrived at between the parties , the plaintiff's principals are entitled to payment of the price of the goods supplied and the sales tax in full when they presented the invoice for the goods. All such transactions are sales effected in respect of goods imported on Actual Users' Licence obtained by the customers from the Chief Controller of Imports and E...
Neela Bai Ammal Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1974
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ37
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The civil revision petition has to be allowed.2. The decree-holder is the petitioner. She obtained a decree in the City Civil Court, Madras, in O. S. No. 291 of 1970. But prior to the said decree date, she had filed an application for attachment before judgment of the defendant's property and on 20th January, 1970 such an attachment was ordered, as seen from Exhibit B-4, and was effected on 22nd April, 1970, as seen from Exhibit B-5. The Court can safely presume that the attachment had been effected by reason of the said order. This was followed, as already stated, by the decree on 28th July, 1971. Thereafter, the petitioner, decree-holder sought for a transfer of the decree with the usual certificate of non-satisfaction to the Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee. This was on 6th November, 1971. After the transfer was so effected of the decree for purposes of executing the decree, the petitioner filed E. P. No. 884 of 1971, in the transferee Court,...
N. Natesa Naicker and ors. Vs. Vedagiri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1974
Reported in: (1975)1MLJ301
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Second Appeal Nos. 1523 to 1528 of 1972 arise out of O.S. Nos. 4686 of 1968, 4683 of 1968, 4684 of 1968, 4084 of 1968, 5566 of 1968 and 5036 of 1968, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The only defendant in O.S. No. 4685 of 1968 has preferred S.A. No. 198 of 1973. The third defendant in O.S. No. 4084 of 1968 has filed S.A. No. 199 of 1973 independently, while defendants 1, 2 and 4 have preferred S.A. No. 1526 of 1972, aforementioned.2. In short, all the appellants who profess themselves to be tenants entitled to be protected under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as the Act), have preferred the above second appeals, since the Courts below have negatived their claim holding that they are only sub-tenants and as such, the plaintiff-Vedagiri who is the present purchaser of the suit property, is entitled to evict them and get the necessary declaration he has prayed for in the various suits.3. Suffice it to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›