Chennai Court July 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.
Rasiklal M. Mehta and anr. Vs. the Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Mad194; (1976)1MLJ115
M.M. Ismail, J.1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4120 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, are the appellants herein. They are admittedly the owners of premises No. 38/3, Mount Road, Madras. The respondent herein took on lease the ground floor of the above premises on a rent of Rs. 4,000 per month. The lease was evidenced by a registered deed dated 22nd April, 1964, Exhibit A-1, in this case. On the same date, an agreement also was entered into between the parties. The lease was to commence from 1st January, 1964 and to be in force for a period of three years till 31st December, 1966. The lease deed contained a covenant for renewal at the option of the lessee for a further period of three years on the same conditions as contained in Exhibit A-1. It is the admitted case of the parties that before the expiry of the three years prescribed in Exhibit A-1, namely 31st December, 1966, the respondent herein exercised the option to renew the lease for a further period of three year...
H.A. Karim Sait (Deaceased) and ors. Vs. Myath Basha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ225
V. Sethuraman, J.1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in the three appeals before him. The defendant in the trial Court was a tenant of the residential back portion in premises No. 3, Gopathi Narayanaswami Chetty Road, T. Nagar, consisting of 6 rooms, verandah and a hall on a monthly rent of Rs. 225 per mensem. Alleging that he bad defaulted in payment of rent and had sub-let the premises without the consent of the landlord, proceedings under the House Rent Control Act were taken against him. The defendant remained ex parte and eviction was ordered. The plaintiffs took possession on 31st October, 1968, and three suits were filed for recovery of the rent from 1st April, 1967 to 31st October, 1968. The total amount claimed is Rs. 2,025.2. The defence was that the defendant had vacated the portion in his occupation on 1st March, 1966, that he had sent a notice to that effect on 25th March, 1966, and that he was not liable ...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Visweswaradas Gokuldass
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1975
Reported in: [1975]36STC479(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The respondents to this case are dealers in non-ferrous metals carrying on business at No. 122, Mint Street, Madras-I. They will be hereafter referred to as the importers. They had with them an import licence for importing a good quantity of zinc. The distribution of imported zinc was controlled and it will have to be done under the directions of the Controller of Non-ferrous Metals. Established importers like the respondents have to distribute the zinc to such of those local purchasers to whom the Controller of Non-ferrous Metals had issued a permit. On 18th September, 1964, the Controller directed the importers to sell the zinc that would be imported by them to M/s. India Metal and Metallurgical Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the linked customer) and adviced the importers to contract the said corporation to ascertain their requirements as regards the quantity and specification of the materials and the programme of delivery. Thereafter, the linked customer ...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Tiruchirapalli Division Vs. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1975
Reported in: [1977]39STC137(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The respondent-assessees were dealers in hides and skins. They were unlicensed dealers. In the view that unlicensed dealers were not liable to pay sales tax, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ambur, held that the entire turnover of Rs. 5,17,337.36 was exempt from taxation and made an order accordingly on 13th June, 1958. Subsequent to this order, the Supreme Court reversing the decision of this court held that unlicensed dealers in hides and skins are liable to be taxed at multi-point on their purchase turnover. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, invoking his powers under Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act), issued a notice to the assessees calling upon them to show cause as to why the taxable turnover should not be revised including the entire turnover exempt as taxable. After a consideration of the objections filed by the assessees, by an order dated 3rd July, 1961, the Deputy Commissioner, Coimbatore, refixed the...
Takhat Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1975
Reported in: [1976]103ITR339(Mad)
Ismail, J. 1. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 4471 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant herein. Having regard to the narrow scope of the appeal, it is not necessary for me to refer to the pleadings in detail and it is enough if I set out the material facts which will be adequate for the disposal of this appeal.2. The plaintiff-appellant and defendants Nos. 4 to 7 are the sons of one Tej Singh, The said Tej Singh was an assessee under the Income-tax Act. For the assessment year 1944-45 by an order dated December 8, 1944, the Hindu undivided family of which the said Tej Singh was the karta was assessed to a tax of Rs. 6,24,516.10, on a total income of Rs. 7,81,261. On the failure of Tej Singh to pay the tax, proceedings for recovery of the tax were initiated. Before the said proceedings were completed, Tej Singh himself died on February 2, 1965. The sons of Tej Singh including the appellant herein filed a petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras,...
Neikara Abdul Hye Sahib and ors. Vs. Neikara Majid Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1975
Reported in: (1976)1MLJ301
S. Mohan, J.1. Defendants 2 to 5, 7 and 8 are the appellants in the above second appeal. O.S. No. 408 of 1966 was filed before the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruppattur, North Arcot, for declaration of the plaintiff's title concerning two items of properties, item 1 covering an extent of 1.59 acres and item 2 covering an extent of 1.28 acres. Under Exhibit A-5 dated 20th November, 1941 the mother of the plaintiff Ayisha Bi came to purchase item 1 from one Abul Salam Sahib for Rs. 100 while item 2 was purchased by the sister of the plaintiff Fathima Bi under Exhibit A-1 dated 22nd November, 1942 for Rs. 58-12. Fathima Bi died in the year 1943. Thereafter the mother, Ayisha Bi executed Exhibit A-1, a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 19th February, 1957 in favour of one Batcha Bi over both these items. Exhibit A-2 was attested by the plaintiff. Under Exhibit A-4 dated 10th September, 1959 Batcha Bi the usufructuary mortgagee assigned her rights in favour of the wife of the plaintiff, ...
Mathi Ammal Vs. Ajjan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ384
ORDERP.R. Gokulakrishnan, J.1. These civil revision petitions arise out of I. A. Nos. 82, 83 and 84 of 1973 in A. S. No. 358 of 1969 on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore. The said interlocutory applications are for excusing the delay in seeking to set aside the order of abatement of the appeal against the deceased third appellant, to set aside the abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives of the third appellant in the appeal as appellants 14 to 16. There was a delay of more than two years in filing this petition. The legal representatives now want to come on record are the sons and daughter of the third appellant in A.S. No. 358 of 1969. Only in September, 1972 when the appeal was posted for hearing the legal representatives of the third appellant met the Advocate and found out that it is necessary to file an application to bring them on record in the place of the third appellant, their father. Apart from the third appellant, there are as many as 12 appellants...
The Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance Dept. of Reve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1975
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ295
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The plea of limitation turns on the scope and applicability of Section 40(2) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The respondent was a manufacturer of tobacco. On 28th May, 1965, his warehouse was checked by Central Excise officials with the result that shortage of 5738 legs, was found in addition to substitution of 1730 legs. We are not concerned with the substitution. On 21st December, 1967 a show-cause notice was served on the respondent as to why the shortage should not be brought to bear excise duty. After considering his explanation dated 4th January, 1968, an assessment order along with demand of tax was made on 16th May, 1968. The respondent's appeal failed on 22nd December, 1968 and so too his revision on 14th July, 1969. On 3rd December, 1970, he was served with notice to remit the duty. These orders of the department were quashed by Ramaprasada Rao, J., on the ground that the show cause notice of the Assistant Collector, treated as a 'proceeding' w...
S. Sundaresa Mudaliar Vs. Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd. by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1975
Reported in: (1975)2MLJ376
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. O.S. No. 37 of 1970 was preferred by the first respondent therein (Mayavaram Financial Corporation Limited) against the first defendant, the borrower, from the Chit fund and the second defendant his surety. On 10th February, 1971 there was a consent decree. Even earlier to this decree, on 12th January, 1971 itself the second defendant had died. Properly speaking, there fore, there could not be any valid consent on behalf of the second defendant. However, I.A. No. 461 of 1972 was filed under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, to amend the cause title and to implead the legal representatives of the second defendant as parties to the suit and the decree so as to make it binding on them. LA. Nos. 1637 to 1640 of 1973 were also taken up to set aside the abatement, to bring on record the legal representatives and also to condone the delay under Order 22, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. Curiously enough in none of those interlocutory applications, the legal representati...
Ramaswami Gounder and ors. Vs. Chinnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1975
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ485
S. Mohan, J.1. The defendants are the appellants before me. The respondent filed O.S. No. 24 of 1971 for partition of her 1/6th share in the non-agricultural properties described as items 12-A, 18-A, and 22 to 31 in the plaint-schedule and also for mesne profits both past and future with a charge over A schedule properties. According to her, her husband and defendants 1 to 3 were members of a joint Hindu family and the fourth defendant was their mother. The plaintiff's husband died undivided on 3rd March, 1940. Since her husband had died prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Amendment Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1947) she would be entitled to a share in the non-agricultural properties and also a right of maintenance with a charge over the agricultural properties.2. In defence it was contended that immediately after the death of the husband of the plaintiff there was a panchayat whereunder the plaintiff was given Rs. 2,000 in lieu of her claim for maintenanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »