Chennai Court July 1975 Judgments
The Mettur Chemical and Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. the State of T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1975
Reported in: [1976]37STC288(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a manufacturer of chemicals, soaps, vegetable oils, etc. In respect of the assessment year 1966-67 he claimed exemption under the Central Sales Tax Act of a sum of Rs. 83,016.98 from the taxable turnover on the ground that it represented loading charges incurred by them and which have been separately shown in their bills as such. The assessee failed before the authorities and also the Tribunal in getting this relief. It is seen from the records that the contract was for the sale of these chemicals at particular rates ex-works of the assessee. The acceptance letter in one of the model contracts also showed that in all these cases they expressly stipulated that the loading charges are to be paid extra. There is also no dispute that these loading charges have been shown separately and charged in their invoices. The learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that under Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act this amount cannot be included in t...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad67; (1976)1MLJ17
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The third defendant in O.S.No. 24 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem is the appellant herein and the appeal lies in a very narrow compass even though much judicial time has been spent on matters which are not strictly relevant for the resolution of the controversy raised before the trial Court. The acts which are admitted or established by the evidence and which are not disputed before me are as follows: From time immemorial there had been a temple for Sri Gana Dhandayuthapaniswamy situated in the hillock called Kariaperumal Karadu, situated in Nethiedu, a suburb of Salem. The temple became a dilapidated one and its renovation was done about 50 years back by the brother of P.W. 1, one Nagappa Chettiar. From 1924 onwarsds there had been a sangam called The Maligai and Shop Varthagar Sangam, Shevapet. The said Nagappa Chettiar, was the moving spirit behind this Sangam. For the purpsoe of renovating the temple in question, he spent conside...
Tag this Judgment!Angammal Vs. Muthupechiammal Meenal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad282; (1976)1MLJ161
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. It is now well settled that the invocation of Order 6, rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure is possible only when the substance of the relief asked for in the original pleading is maintained, though in a different form it is sought to be corrected so as to suit the convenience of the litigant. In a case, however, when the amendment sought for by the plaintiff would alter the very foundation of the claim and the said amendment prima facie is distinct, separate and independent of the original relief asked for, then it would not come within the purview of amendment of pleading at all. On the other hand, it would be a substitution of a relief which is different and not asked for in the original plaint. In the instant case, the respondents as the plaintiffs came forward with an application under Order 6, rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure under the following circumstances. In the plaint as originally filed the plaintiffs sought for a declaration that they were entitled to...
Tag this Judgment!Sivabaghathammal and ors. Vs. Thangappa Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad248; (1976)1MLJ160
S. Mohan, J.1. The second appeal arises out of O.S. No. 154 of 1966 which is a suit for recovery of Rs. 4094-90. The case of the plaintiff is that on the morning of 24th April, 1964, the defendant took a hand-loan of Rs. 3,500 from the plaintiff for family expenses agreeing to repay with interest at 9 per cent, per annum and on that very day in the evening he executed a stamped receipt in token of having received this amount. Therefore, the suit is filed on the original debt, the receipt even if it be a promissory note, being insufficiently stamped.2. In the written statement the defendant contended that he never executed any receipt nor did he borrow any hand-loan at all. His further case was that the plaintiff requested the defendant to sell one of his cows and thereupon it was sold for Rs. 220/-, that purporting to be a receipt for the payment of the said sum of Rs. 220/- the suit promissory note has been taken from him stealthily and that in any event the suit document is inadmissi...
Tag this Judgment!Kaithari Lungi Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: [1976]104ITR160(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessee is a firm of partnership carrying on business in lungis under the name and style of 'Kaithari Lungi Stores'. Before February 15, 1962, the partnership consisted of 14 partners. The partners decided to admit one more partner and continue to carry on the same business. A fresh deed of partnership was executed on February 15, 1962. with 15 persons as partners. One of the partners died on May 27, 1963. The remaining partners decided to admit a third party as a partner with effect from May 28, 1963, and continued to carry on the business. After the admission of this partner a fresh deed of partnership dated July 10, 1973, was also executed. On December 15, 1963, two of the partners retired and the remaining 13 partners continued to carry on the business under a fresh deed of partnership dated January 4, 1964, with effect from December 16, 1963.2. In order to meet the financial needs of the partnership, seven more partners were admitted to the partnership and ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Somasundaram Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1975
Reported in: [1977]75STC386(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner, the assessee, which was a firm of partnership and which has since been dissolved, was dealing in hardware, paints, cement, etc. and carrying on business at Erode. For the assessment year 1963-64, by an order dated 15th October, 1964, its taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 6,09,568.55. For the assessment year 1964-65, the taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 6,25,089.28 by an order dated 12th January, 1966. On 8th April, 1966, the car of the manager of the firm was intercepted at Hosur check post and certain anamath accounts relating to the business of the assessee were found being transported from Erode to Bangalore. These accounts disclosed escaped turnover of the assessee. Accordingly, after issuing the necessary notices, reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Ultimately, the suppressed turnover for the assessment year 1963-64 was determined at Rs. 3,23,403.12 and a revised as...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sakkanna Pillai and ors. Vs. K. Pasupathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ166
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. These two revision petitions are connected. In C.R.P. No. 952 of 1974, the three petitioners are the cultivating tenants. In C.R.P. No. 1157 of 1973 the petitioner is the landlord. The landlord filed an application under Section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Act LVIII of 1961) requesting the Authorised Officer to take possession of the land in the possession of the cultivating tenants which is in excess of the cultivating tenants ceiling area as fixed under Section 60 of the Act. It is common ground that under a joint lease dated 28th May, 1969 Exhibit R-1, the three tenants jointly obtained a lease of an extent of 11.51 acres of land belonging to the landlord. It is also common ground that one amongst the petitioners besides being a joint lessee as above, was also the owner of 2.05 acres of land and was also cultivating the same by himself. When the application for resumption, if such an expression could be use...
Tag this Judgment!Punamchand R. Shah (Decd.) (by Legal Representatives) Vs. Income-tax O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1975
Reported in: [1975]101ITR373(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This is a writ petition filed by one Punamchand R. Shah (since deceased, whose legal representatives have been brought on record), a businessman, and a director of South India Flour Mills Private Ltd. praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari so as to quash an order dated 19th December, 1972, passed under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, under the following circumstances :On receipt of information that the petitioner and his brother, Milapchand R. Shah, had extensive assets outside the books acquired out of untaxed resources, the intelligence wing of the income-tax department conducted a search on 23rd June, 1971, at the second floor of the premises No. 1/2, Royapuram Beach Road, then used as the residence of the petitioner. The relevant authorisation was made by the Commissioner of Income-tax in favour of the Assistant Director of Inspection to enter and search the said premises, to place identification marks on such books of account and documents as ma...
Tag this Judgment!M. Nagalingam and ors. Vs. T.K. Ramaswamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ149
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. All these three Revision Petitions arise out of a common order passed in three different Rent Control applications, both by the Rent Controller and also by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner in those eviction petitions is the same. He filed the eviction petitions in respect of three different shops occupied by the different respondents therein Under Sections 10 (2) (7) and 14 (1) (b) of the Act.2. The trial Court found that the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction Under Section 14 (1) (b) is bona fide but holding that there is no valid notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, dismisssed the eviction petitions. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the landlord preferred three Rent Control Appeals. The lower Appellate Court confirmed the finding as regards the bona fide requirement of the landlord is concerned for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. On the ground of defective notice, the lowe...
Tag this Judgment!K. Nasir Basha and anr. Vs. Turukkan Chatram Charities Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad120; (1976)1MLJ156
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. Defendants are the appellants.2. The suit was for ejectment on the allegations that the plaintiffs trust is the owner of the suit property, that the first defendant is a monthly tenant under the plaintiff, that the first defendant, according to the lease, should vacate after thirty days' notice, that no improvement had been made by the defendants as to claim compensation at the time of vacating, that to the notice issued the first defendant replied denying the tenancy, that thereupon a fresh notice dated 26th January, 1968 was issued determining the tenancy and that the second defendant has been impleaded as a party, as the first defendant has transferred the lease to him. The plaintiff no doubt denied the alleged transfer and also denied any practice in respect of chatram properties, alleged by the defendants.3. The first defendant contended that he transferred the lease to the second defendant on 21st November, 1967 which has been recognised by the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »