Chennai Court February 1975 Judgments
M.C. Chockalingam and ors. Vs. State of Madras, Represented by the Col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad256; (1976)1MLJ317
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. This is an appeal arising out of a land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Act. The purpose of the acquisition, was to provide a State Transport Bus Stand at Raja Annamalaipuram. This is a very busy and important crowded locality. The notification under Section 4(1) was made on. 5th June, 1963, and there was a correction about the area to be acquired by another notification, dated 17th March, 1965. The total extent sought to be acquired was 7 grounds 503 sq. ft. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value at Rs. 10,000 per ground, which was confirmed in the reference under Section 18. The basis for this assessment of the value was Exhibit B-8, dated 10th August, 1961, relating to No. 4313/2 of an extent of 2 grounds 923 sq. ft. The document supported a rate of Rs. 7,755 per ground. But subsequently, for purposes of urban land tax, the remaining extent of land, excluding the land acquired, has been valued at the rate of Rs. 16,000 per ground. The assess...
Tag this Judgment!T.K.S.M. Kalyanasundaram Vs. Kalyani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1717
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against the orders of the First Class Magistrate (Executive), Karaikkal, in M. C. No. 18 of 1971 on his file giving certain directions to the petitioner herein (respondent in M. C. 18 of 1971).2. M, C. No. 18 of 1971 was filed by the first respondent herein under Section 133, Cr. P. C., in order to prohibit the working of the petitioner's industry in his rice mill situate in East Street, Neravy, a residential area, on the ground that the conduct of the said trade in the premises is injurious to the health and the physical comfort of the residents of that locality. The trade carried on by the petitioner is processing and boiling of paddy after it is soaked for softness in cisterns and the spreading of the boiled paddy on the open yard inside the mill premises for drying. The first respondent alleged nuisance by the foul smell emanating from the soaking cisterns, stagnation of water drained from these cisterns and the fly as...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madurai Knitting Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR36(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee in this case is a firm of partnership, consisting of nine partners, registered under Section 26A of the Income-tax Act. For the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the firm was assessed by orders dated December 30, 1961, under Section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The business loss was determined at Rs. 1,37,674 and Rs. 1,51,221, respectively. The Income-tax Officer also computed that the assessee-firm derived capital gains of Rs. 22,865 and Rs. 58,360, respectively. But, in the original assessment order, the Income-tax Officer did not set off the business loss against the capital gains and did not strike the net figure of loss. Consequently, in the individual assessments of the partners, the Income-tax Officer allowed deduction for the gross business loss apportioned in the ratio in which they were entitled to share profit and loss and brought to tax the share of capital gains as allocated to them. On the ground that a mistake apparent on the...
Tag this Judgment!Major of the Commune D' Ariancoupon Vs. R. Krishenin, Ex. Commissiopta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1975
Reported in: (1975)IILLJ536Mad
Maharajan, J.1. The Mayor of the Ariankuppam Commune, Pondicherry has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Third Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, whereby, in pursuance of an application presented by the respondent before the former Administrative Court of Pondicherry, the decision of the Mayor dismissing the respondent has been held to be invalid and consequently set aside. The appellant was also directed to pay the costs of the proceedings to the respondent. 'The petition itself was filed under the French Law in the Council De Contentieux Administratif (Administrative Court) which was functioning under the French laws before the de jure merger of Pondicherry with the rest of India. After the de jure merger, the Pondicherry Civil Courts Act was enacted, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court at Pondicherry and directed that all cases pending before the said Court shall be heard and disposed of by the District Judge or the Additional Dis...
Tag this Judgment!The English Electric Co. of India Ltd. Vs. the Superintendent, Central ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Mad393; 1979(4)ELT36(Mad); (1975)2MLJ479
Veeraswami, C.J.1. This petition raises an interesting question as to the scope of Entry 23-B in the first Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner, the English Electric Co. of India Ltd., engages itself in manufacturing equipment useful in the distribution of electricity at its works at Pallavaram near Madias. One of the items of manufacture is High Rupturing Capacity Cartridge Fuselinks. The question is whether this will attract excise duty under the Entry. For the year 1968, the Revenue, after consulting the Chemical Examiner, concluded that the particular H. R. C. Fuselinks would not fall within the scope of Entry 23-B. But, on 7-11-1973, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Guindy Mixed Range, notified the petitioner that in view of the revised opinion expressed by the Chemical Examiner, the article would attract excise duty. A part of the Chemical Examiner's report was cited, in that communication. It said that the sample was in the form of white hollow...
Tag this Judgment!United Commercial Bank Ltd. and anr. and Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1975
Reported in: [1976]46CompCas403(Mad)
K. Veeraswami, C.J. 1. These appeals, one by the first defendant and the other by the second defendant banks, arise out of the suit instituted by the first respondent for a declaration that moneys paid out on the basis of a cheque issued by it should not be debited to its account and in the alternative for recovery of the amounts covered by the cheque and also damages with interest on the former amount from the date of the plaint from the first defendant, or the second defendant, or both. The first respondent, Reliable Hire Purchase Co. Private Ltd., drew a cheque on the Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., as it then was, on November 10, 1960, for a sum of Rs. 56,000 in favour of Sundaram Motors Private Ltd. One Raman, the managing director of Manasuba & Co. Private Ltd., received the cheque with a covering letter addressed to Sundaram Motors Private Ltd., on the understanding that he would purchase a motor vehicle on a hire purchase basis with that money. But, admittedly, Raman forged an endor...
Tag this Judgment!The United Commercial Bank Limited and ors. Vs. Reliable Hire Purchase ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ286
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. These appeals, one by the first defendant and the other by the second defendant Banks arise out of the suit instituted by the first respondent for a declaration that moneys paid out on the basis of a cheque issued by it should not be debited to its account and in the alternative for recovery of the amount covered by the cheque and also damages with interest on the former amount from the date of the plaint from the first defendant or the second defendant, or both. The first respondent, Reliable Hire Purchase Co. Private, Ltd., drew up a cheque on the Indian Overseas Bank Limited, as it then was, on 10th November, 1960, for a sum of Rs. 56,000 in favour of Sundaram Motors Private Ltd. One Raman, the Managing Director of Manasuba and Co. Private Ltd., received the cheque with a covering letter addressed to Sundaram Motors Private Ltd., on the understanding that he would purchase a motor vehicle on a hire purchase basis with that money. But, admittedly, Ramon forged a...
Tag this Judgment!G. Ambiga Ammal Vs. Selvaraja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ51
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. This revision petition under Section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is filed by one Ambiga Ammal who is the trustee of Sri Pandurangaswami Bhajanai Koil and who filed an application before the learned Rent Controller under Sections 10 (2) (i), 10 (2) (ii), (b), 10 (2) (iii) and 10 (2) (v) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the respondent who is a tenant in respect of a shop adjacent to the Sri Pandurangaswami Bhajanai Koil, which premises belongs to the aforesaid Sri Pandurangaswami Bhajanai Koil. The revision petitioner sought the eviction of the tenant on the following grounds : (1) that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent; (2) that the tenant committed acts of waste in the premises; (3) that he caused nuisance to the occupiers of the other premises; and (4) that the tenant had converted the non-residential portion into a residential one. The tenant refuted those assertions ...
Tag this Judgment!V.P. Padmavathi Ammal and ors. Vs. P.S. Swaminatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1975Mad343; (1975)2MLJ27
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The legal representatives of a mortgagor whose property had been sold under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act are the appellants in the appeal and the petitioners in the revision petition. The plaintiff who is the auction purchaser of the property filed the suit for possession. It was resisted by the legal representatives of the mortgagor who have been impleaded as defendants 1 to 8 in the suit, on the ground that the plaintiff is only a nominee of the mortgagee and that therefore the private sale under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act is wholly invalid. An issue was framed touching the above question. However, at the time of the trial, when the defendants wanted to cross-examine the plaintiff while he was in the witness-box, regarding the question whether he was only a nominee of the mortgagee, the court below held that by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 69, it was not open to the defendants to attack the sale in the manner in which they tr...
Tag this Judgment!S. Naganathan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1975
Reported in: [1975]101ITR287(Mad)
Ramaswami, J. 1. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 the assessee submitted wealth-tax returns declaring a net wealth of Rs. 92,958and Rs. 99,908 and claimed that this being less than rupees one lakh no wealth-tax was payable by him. The assessee claimed that the house and ground bearing No. 17, Lakshmi Colony, North Crescent Road, T. Nagar, Madras, which stood in the name of his wife in which he and his wife were living was not liable to be included in determining the net wealth of the assessee on the ground that; the value of the house was less than Rs. 1,00,000 and the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. Though the facts are not very clear as to how exactly the said house was treated as falling under Section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, it is agreed in this reference by the learned counsel for both the parties that it will have to be treated as one falling under Section 4(1)(a). The Wealth-tax Officer was of the view that, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »