Chennai Court November 1975 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.
Prakash Stores Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC300(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner-assessee sold what is described as royal series musk and some others described as cobra brand, jasmine, etc., manufactured by S.K. Kelkar & Co. Private Ltd., Bombay. When the turnover relating to these was sought to be taxed at single point as scent or perfume falling under entry 51 of the First Schedule to the Sales Tax Act, the assessee contended that these were mainly used for the manufacture of scented sticks, that they are raw materials for the scented sticks, that normally they are unfit to be used on human bodies and that, therefore, they could not be classified as scents or perfumes within the meaning of that entry. The assessing authorities held that though it might form raw material for the scented sticks, the goods as such will also come under the description of scent or perfume under the said entry 51. In that view, they determined the turnover as liable for payment of sales tax at single point. In these revision petitions, the learned coun...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sha Maggajee Saremal and Brothers and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1975
Reported in: [1976]38STC118(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In all these four cases the question for consideration is whether the sale of imported tractor parts are liable to be taxed under entry 55 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on single point at the piont of first sale in the State after import or whether the sales are liable for multi-point under the general provision contained in Section 3 of the Act.2. The respondents in each of these cases imported these articles under import licences, which authorised them to import agricultural tractor parts. The customs authorities also levied customs duty as for import of agricultural tractor parts. But in most of the transactions the respondent-assessees have sold these articles as 'spare parts for diesel engines'. In some of the bills of some of the assessees they have charged 6 1/2 per cent sales tax and in others they have charged only 2 1/2 per cent.3. Before the assessing officers the assessees contended that they imported only agricultural trac...
A. Subbiah Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR564(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The assessee was plying four lorries up to March 31, 1961. On and from April 1., 1961, a partnership firm consisting of the assessee, his two sons and his divided brother, one Kanniappan, was formed and this partnership firm took over the four lorries. In the return filed bythe assessee for the assessment year 1962-63, he claimed his status as an individual and made a claim that he did not make any profit in the transaction by which the partnership firm took over the lorries. In the accounts of both the assessee and the partnership firm, the value of the lorries was shown at the original book value. At the time of assessment, however, the assessee filed an affidavit stating that due to mistake and ignorance, the value standing in the account of the lorries in his individual books was transferred as purchase price to the books of the firm and in doing so the actual market value of the lorries was not taken into account resulting in presenting a wrong picture of the a...
S. Sankaranarayanaswami Pillai Vs. Pechiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ196
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage in the following circumstances. The mortgaged property belonged to one Ammaponnu and her minor children. Ammaponnu acting for herself and for her minor children usufructually mortgaged the property in favour of one Ponnammal. Ponnammal borrowed in her turn a sum of Rs. 1,000 from one Meenakshi Ammal on 3rd January 1955., On 5th March, 1953 Ponnammal, the usufructuary mortgagee deposited the mortgage deed with Meenakshi Ammal, her creditor and thereby created a sub-mortgage. Meenakshi Ammal filed O.S. No. 366 of 1962 for recovery of the amount due from Ponnammal and for enforcing the charge. She got an ex parte decree and in execution in E.P.No. 904 of 1964, she brought to sale the sub-mortgage right of Ponnammal. Her husband purchased the sub-mortgage right on 15th March, 1965. The husband is the present defendant who is the appellant here. The sale in favour of the defendant was...
S. Sharbudeen Vs. C. Ramadoss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ488
Veeraswami, C.J.1. The Chairman of the Municipal Council, Kumbakonam, addressed a letter dated 18th January, 1975, to the Municipal Commissioner of that municipality stating that thereby he tendered his resignation from the chairmanship of the Kumbakonam Municipal Council from that day. He, in that letter, requested the Commissioner to place his letter of resignation before the municipal council for information of the members. The letter wound up by a further request to the Commissioner to convey his thanks for the co-operation and support extended to him previously by the vice-chairman, members of the municipal council and other members and employees of the municipality. Copies of this letter were sent to the Director of Municipal Administration, Madras, the District Collector, Thanjavur, the Assistant Collector, Kumbakonam, and the vice chairman of the municipal council. On the 24th of that month, the municipal council met. 24 members attended including the chairman. The council reco...
M.E. Subramani and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Char ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ281
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioners are three of the non-hereditary trustees out of the five appointed for a religious institution comprising the Arulmigu Margasahaya Iswarar, Varasiddhi Vinayakar and Karunakara Perumal, etc., group of temples at Maduravoyal, Saidapet taluk, Chingleput District, by an order dated 27th August, 1973 of the Assistant Collector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. It appears that apart from the three trustees who are the petitioners herein, the other two are not effectively functioning as trustees. The 4th trustee is said to be a former managing trustee and he is said to be giving constant trouble to the petitioners who are said to be sincere in carrying out their duties as trustees. The 5th trustee is said to have resigned from the trusteeship.2. The first respondent herein, in exercise of his powers under Section 45 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, had appointed, by his order dated 4th September, 1975 the ...
Srila Sri Ramanathagnana Desikar Swamigal, Matathipathi of Kovilur Mut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ533
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The defendant who succeeded in the trial Court, but failed in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. The respondent filed the suit for a declaration that the consent order for eviction passed in R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 1968 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif, Manamadurai) is not valid and binding on him, for three reasons, namely, that he was not aware of the contents of the endorsement made by him on the petition for eviction; that he signed the endorsement without knowing the implications and that the Rent Controller has not applied his mind before he passed the order of eviction on the basis of the endorsement made on the petition for eviction. The appellant's defence was that the respondent signed the joint endorsement knowing its contents and implications and that the Rent Controller applied his mind and found that the order of eviction was called, for and ordered the eviction.2. The trial Court found that the order of the Rent Controller was ...
Kathaperumal Pillai Vs. Murugesam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ349
A. Varadarajan, J.1. The plaintiff, who succeeded in the trial Court but failed in the lower appellate Court, is the appellant. He filed the suit for possession of agricultural lands. He had obtained the sale deed, Exhibit A-1, from the Court in execution of a compromise decree for specific performance obtained by him against the defendants in O.S. No. i33 of 1959 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli. The defendants in that suit are not parties to the present action. The appellant obtained possession of the properties covered by Exhibit A-1 through the Court in E.P. No. 193 of 1964 on 21st September, 1964 with some standing crops which were said to be two months old, as seen from the delivery receipt, Exhibit A-2. His case was that thereafter at the instance of defendants 3 and 4, defendants 1 and 2 trespassed on the property on 21st October, 1964 and cut and carried p.way the crops. He, therefore, filed the suit for recovery of possession of the properties with past and future...
Alagammal Vs. M.S. Rajagopala Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ397
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey the suit properties and for costs. The plaintiff sold the suit properties to the defendant for a Sum of Rs. 800 on 23rd July, 1965 under Exhibit B-1. It was registered on 24th July, 1965. On that date, there was an agreement of reconveyance entered into between the same parties whereby the defendant agreed to reconvey the suit properties to the plaintiff within a period of 2 1/2 years from the date of the said agreement on receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,375. This agreement of reconveyance has been marked as Exhibit A-1. On the basis of this agreement, the plaintiff called upon the defendant on 29th September, 1967 to execute a reconveyance deed for the sum of Rs. 1,375 and offered to pay the said sum. But the defendant replied refusing the said offer. The plaintiff, therefore, came forward with the suit for specific performance.2. The defendant raised substanti...
Workmen of the Sri Ranga Engineering Works Vs. Principal Labour Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1975
Reported in: (1977)ILLJ80Mad
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners are certain workmen employed in the second respondent-company, Sri Ranga Engineering Works, which is a foundry. On the happening of certain incident on 16th September, 1972, the workers appear to have protested to the management about the alleged ill treatment of a workman which resulted in ' the closure of the factory by the management on and from 20th September, 1972. All the workers received notice of lock-out on the afternoon of 19th September, 1972. The workers tried to negotiate with the management to lift the lock-out and take them into employment. Ultimately, the matter was considered by the Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report on 8-1-1973. The workers demanded a reference. The Government agreeing with their demand, referred the following question for adjudication by the Labour Court in G.O. Rt. No. 976 datedAnnexure IWhether the non-employment of the Workmen mentioned in Annexure II from 2-9-72 is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »