Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Subramaniam Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1975
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1200
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The revision petitioner herein and another were accused of offences punishable under Section 61 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Excise Act (in C. C, No. 1911/1973 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Villupuram. The trial Court, after taking evidence in this case, found the petitioner and the other accused viz., one Lakshmanasha guilty of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.2. The prosecution case is that on 8-8-1973, at about 4.30 P. M. Shanmugam (P.W. 1), the Inspector of Police (Excise), Valavanur, checked the car bearing Registration No. MEQ 3051 at Kandamanga-lam check-post and found accused 1 sitting on the Driver's seat. The other accused viz. Lakshmanasha was by his side. The other persons viz., one Krishnaraju and one Shankar, who were also found sitting on the rear seats, were juveniles and therefore the case as against them was split up and tried separately in C. C. 2844 of 1973. O...
The Asst. Collector of Central Excise Vs. Achal Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1975
Reported in: 1975CriLJ1817
ORDERRatnavelpandian, J.1. The petitioner, who was the complainant in C. C. No. 266 of 1973 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, has filed this revision petition for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the respondent-accused by the Lower Court.2. The respondent-accused was tried by the learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Section 135(b)(ii) read with Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act and Section 85(iii) and (iv) read with Sections 8(i), 27(i), 71 and 74 of the Gold (Control) Act. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Erode, filed a complaint against the respondent with the allegation that on 17-7-1972, at 11 a. m. in door No. 270, Nethaji Road, Erode, in the shop of one Shri Mangilal Nemichand, he was found to be in possession of five gold bars with foreign marking 'CREDIT SUISSE 999 010 tolas CEIES AYEUR PORDEUR' without a valid permit. The said gold bars bearing foreign marking were seized from the ...
R. Muthammal Vs. Narmada and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ304
ORDERS. Natarajan, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 138 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Erode, who has been called upon to pay additional Court-fee of Rs. 4,499.50 p. has preferred this revision petition to canvass the propriety of the order.2. With regard to the properties of one Rangaswami Naidu, there was a partition suit in OS. No. 134 of 1969 to which the members of the family of Rangaswami Naidu were parties. Rangaswami Naidu had two sons of whom one Venkataswami Naidu was the second. In the partition suit, not only Venkataswami Naidu, but his son, the ninth defendant in the present suit were made parties. Ultimately the suit was compromised on 9th July, 1969 and a compromise decree was passed in the said suit under the terms of which, the A schedule properties in the present suit were given to Venkataswami and his minor son, and in addition, the B schedule property herein was given to the minor to be enjoyed by him absolutely. In the present suit, the ...
Muthu Bhattar Vs. D. Chokku Bhattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad8; (1975)2MLJ232
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 151 of 1965 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Madurai is the appellant. The dispute is about the right which one of the widows of a joint family acquired in relation to one of the properties of the family. Chinnasami Bhattar had five sons. Three amongst them died issueless. The other two sons were Subbu Bhattar and Chocku Bhattar. Subbu Bhattar died leaving behind him his son Chinnaswami Bhattar, who, in turn, died on 31st December, 1937, leaving behind him his widow Ammani Ammal. The other son Chokku Bhattar died in 1935 leaving behind him Subbammal as his widow. Ammani Ammal died on 22nd February, 1945, after having taken the plaintiff in adoption. Subbammal, however, lived till 3rd September, 1965. Subammal was therefore admittedly a pre-1937 widow in the sense that she became widow prior to the passing of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act of 1937. In 1940, she filed the suit O.S. No. 202 o...
Muthu Karuppan Chettiar Vs. Chinnaponnu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ229
ORDERC.J.R. Paul, J.1. This second appeal arises in the following circumstances. The appellant filed an execution petition before the learned District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli under Order 21, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the realisation of the amounts due under the decree by attachment and sale of the respondent's property. The amount claimed in the execution petition was Rs. 2,220-05P. The respondent (judgment-debtor) contended that the execution petition was not at all maintainable inasmuch as, in the prior execution petition, viz., E.P. No. 126 of 1972, the valuable plantain crops raised by him on an extent of 78 cents had been attached and put in the possession of a receiver appointed by the Court and the receiver had harvested the crop and sold the same, But had not put the sale proceeds into Court, but died after that, and in those circumstances, the decree-holder had to proceed only against the heirs of the receiver for realisation of the amount, and not by attachi...
Binny Limited Vs. C.C. Thomas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ223
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 5625 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant herein. The respondent herein at the relevant time was working as Assistant Engineer in the Shipping Section, (Madras Harbour) of the appellant herein. Certain charges were framed against the respondent by the appellant and those charges have been set out in the following terms in paragraph 20 of the judgment, which alone was brought to my notice during the hearing of this appeal, as follows:The gravamen of the charge found in Exhibit B-13 may be divided into four categories as shown hereunder : (1) the first is that the plaintiff received Rs. 2,450 from Southern Shipping Corporation on or about 27th April, 1967, Rs. 240 on 22nd May, 1967 from Chettinad Cement Corporation, and failed to deposit the said amounts, thereby caused loss to the defendant company; (2) that he failed to ensure that the said amounts were remitted to the head office and thereby he was negligent ...
Associated Electrical Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC310(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners are dealers in electrical goods carrying on business at Madras with a branch at Coimbatore. They are registered dealers under the Central Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1963-64, they submitted a return showing the total and taxable turnovers at Rs. 21,79,561.66 and Rs. 15,07,263.32 respectively, claiming certain turnover as exempt on the ground that they are second sales falling under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. They produced a certificate in form E-I from the selling dealer of Calcutta. But this certificate in E-I form covered a period of over five months and more than one transaction. The assessing officer disallowed this claim on the ground that the E-I form certificate produced was not in accordance with Rule 9-D of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules, 1957, as it covered more than one transaction of sale. This view was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who had also stated that the E-I certificate not...
M. Sundaresan Chettiar Vs. A. Muthuvelavendan Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad73; (1976)1MLJ20
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 299 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore is the appellant herein. The appellant instituted the suit against the defendant for recovery of the sum due under Exhibit A-1 promissory note, dated 17th April, 1964 for Rs. 10,000 executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant. The suit was decreed as prayed for with costs, but with interest as per the Madras Act IV of 1938. In the appeal the only question that is raised is whether the respondent was entitled to the benefits of the Madras Act IV of 1938. This question has been dealt with by the learned Subordinate Judge in paragraph 10 of his judgment under additional issue. This question Was raised by the respondent by way of an additional written statement filed by him. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies on an affidavit filed by the respondent herein on 26th August, 1969 wherein he stated that he had been given notice of assessment in which the in...
Coimbatore Murugan Mills Ltd. Vs. Board of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC622(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a textile mill at Coimbatore producing cotton yarn. In respect of an assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1966-67, the assessee claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 19,33,380.94 on the ground that they are depot sales. It also claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,78,243.56, which represented the excise duty paid by it to the Government of India, was not includible in the taxable turnover. The assessing authority rejected both these claims. On an appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, while confirming the rejection of the claim of exemption on the turnover of Rs. 19,33,380.94, allowed the deduction of the amount representing the excise duty. The finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was that there were no depot sales in respect of the turnover claimed on that account, but they were all inter-State sales liable to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. In respect of the excise duty, the App...
M.H. Naeems and Co. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Jo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ75
V. Ramaswami, J.1. This case had a protracted career. Though the assessment relates to the year 1954-55 we had to consider the legality of the assessment as late as 1975.2. The appellants were dealers in hides and skins carrying on the business at No. 9, Rama Pillai Street, Periamet, Madras. Originally the assessment order was made by the Assessment Commercial Tax Officer on 20th October, 1959. By this order though the gross turnover was a huge amount the net taxable turnover was determined only at Rs. 7,447.11.3 which did not attract any tax because of the pecuniary limit of Rs. 10,000 fixed at that time. The Assessment Officer had exempted the turnover relating to hides and skins on the ground that they were not licenced dealers purporting to follow the decisions of this Court in M.A. Noor Mohamed end Co. v. State of Madras : AIR1957Mad33 , Since the order was a 'Nil' assessment order it was not communicated to the assessee. Subsequently the Supreme Court reversed the decision of thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »