Chennai Court February 1976 Judgments
Ponnuswamy and anr. Vs. Venkatahchalam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ431
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. Accused 1 and 2 in C.C. 41 of 1974 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate No. II, Salem have preferred this revision petition, canvassing the correctness and propriety of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Salem dated 13-3-1975, in C.A. 11 of 1975, confirming the judgment of the trial Magistrate dated 27-12-1974 convicting the first petitioner (accused-1) for offences under Sections 326 and 324, Indian Penal Code, and the second petitioner (accused-2] under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing the first petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 326, Indian Penal Code (no separate sentence being passed under Section 324, Indian Penal Code) and the second petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 324, Indian Penal Code.2. The crux of the indictment against these two petitioners and one Chinna Ponnu (who was accused-3 before the trial Court), based on the private complaint pr...
Tag this Judgment!K. Sukumaran Nair Vs. S. Neelakantan Nair by Constituted Attorney P. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Mad329; (1976)2MLJ84
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The only question of law that has been argued in this batch of Civil Revision Petitions is whether a notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106, of the Transfer of Property Act is required before taking action under one or the other of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, i960. The facts which are common and which are not agitated before me need not be adverted to. But the question has arisen in all these cases whether a notice of termination of tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act is required at all before a petition could be presented to the statutory authority under the Buildings Act for obtaining relief under the various provisions of the Act.2. There is abundance of case law on this subject and at one time they were perplexing and apparently contradictory as well. I shall now trace the various decided cases to find whether in the view of the Supreme Court as laid down by them and reiterated by them later th...
Tag this Judgment!State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sri Swamy and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC85(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In these two cases while revising the assessments of the dealer under Section 16, the assessing officer also levied penalty under Section 16(2). The Tribunal set aside the order of penalty while confirming the reassessment order in one case and reducing the escaped turnover in the other case on the ground that there was no specific finding of wilful non-disclosure of the turnover as required under Section 16(2) of the Act. These revision petitions have been filed challenging only that portion of the order of the Tribunal relating to setting aside the order of penalty. The Tribunal is not correct in stating that the assessing officer had not given a finding of wilful non-disclosure of the taxable turnover. In fact, the assessing officer, after discussing the anamath slips, which showed sales, clearly stated that the penalty is levied for proved suppression. The use of the word 'suppression' shows that what the assessing officer found was wilful non-disclosure. If it w...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Vs. Amirtham Ghee Stores
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: [1978]41STC259(Mad)
V. Ramaswami1. Tile assessee is a dealer in butter and ghee. For the assessment year 1971-72, he had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 56,129.06 and Rs. 54,335.60 respectively in form A-2 returns submitted by him during the year. On the ground that the accounts produced showed some discrepancies, a preassessment notice was issued proposing to add a sum of Rs. 10,867.12 to the turnover disclosed in the accounts as probable omissions. This notice was issued on 14th July, 1972. In the reply of the assessee dated 27th July, 1972, to this preassessment notice, the assessee contended that his business was dull during the year and that, therefore, the turnover was not high. He, accordingly, prayed that no addition should be made. He also stated that, since his turnover is less than rupees one lakh, he may be assessed under Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73. The Tribunal has now given a finding that the reference to the assessment year 1972-73, in the re...
Tag this Judgment!Saranga Padayachi Vs. Vairakannu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1976Mad307; (1976)2MLJ53
ORDERN.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioner before me filed an application under Section 20 of Act V of 1938 as early as 1973 and obtained an order of stay of execution by the order dated 18th June, 1973. He did not care to file an application under Section 19 within sixty days of the said order, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 20. Later i.e., on 11th April, 1974 the application out of which the present civil miscellaneous appeal arises came to be filed under Section 19 for scaling down the debt. This is clearly barred by limitation.2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant-judgment-debtor that Section 19 itself does not provide for any period of limitation, that an application under that section can be filed at any time and that, therefore, the proviso to Section 20 should not be invoked in support of the contention that the application under Section 19 is barred by limitation. I am unable to agree with that contention.3. The proviso to Section 20 clearly says that if an...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Brothers Agencies and ors. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC191(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In all these tax revision cases a common question of law arises. The two dealers who are petitioners in these cases have manufactured and sold battery plates. They claimed that in respect of the turnover relating to these sales, they had to be assessed under Section 3(1) at multi-point. But the assessing officer was of the view that it is liable to be taxed under entry 3-A of the First Schedule on the first sale in the State. This order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. On a further appeal, while agreeing with the contention of the assessees that the battery plates cannot fall under item 3-A of the First Schedule, the Tribunal held that it is liable to be taxed at single point on the first sale in the State under entry 41 of the First Schedule. It is the correctness of this view of the Tribunal, that is questioned in these batch of tax cases. The Tribunal had brought it under item 41 on the ground that the battery plates manufactured an...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Coimbatore Division Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC265(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in these tax cases relates to the assessability of certain turnover in a canteen run by three companies, M/s. A.B.T. (P.) Ltd., M/s. Anamalai Engineering Co. and M/s. Gounder & Co. The three companies are sister concerns, The preassessment notice was issued to the manager of the canteen, proposing to assess the canteen sales. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the canteen sales are exempt from the levy of tax under G.O. Press No. 2238, Revenue, dated 1st September, 1964. Though the assessment years are different, the same question arises now in respect of all the assessment years. The assessing officer and the appellate authority rejected this claim of exemption on the ground that the Government Order invoked by them applies only to canteens run by individual employers, who are under a statutory obligation, but not to a case where it was run by three different companies jointly for their employees. On a further app...
Tag this Judgment!Agha Hyder HussaIn and anr. Vs. Omar Khayyam Wineries (Pvt.) Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad166; (1977)1MLJ158
1. These two related appeals arise from an order of Gokulakrishnan J. Who declined to interfere with a common order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade marks in M. A. S. Nos. 127 and 128.2. The first appellant had registered on 1-1-1970 a trade mark under the name and style of 'Omar Khayyam Hotel Restaurant and Bar'. The respondent was called on by the Assistant Registrar to file any objections to the application of the first appellant since the respondent was using the mark 'Omar Khayyam Wineries (P.) Ltd.' But no objections were filed. The respondent, however, on 10-1-1970, appealed to the Assistant Registrar under S. 46 of the Trade and Merchandise marks Act, 1958, for rectification of the trade mark of the first appellant, registered and notified in the Trade Mark Journal on the date aforesaid. This application was resisted by the first appellant, but all the same was allowed by the Assistant Registrar. Gokulakrishnan J. declined to interfere.3. The facts briefly are these: On 16-1...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC519(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The respondent-assessees are manufacturers of cement. For the assessment year 1969-70, they reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,56,72,484.29 and Rs. 1,33,32,751.23. The only point in dispute in this tax revision case related to a sum of Rs. 14,04,131.29, which represented the freight charges. On the ground that they have separately specified and charged freight in their invoices, they claimed deduction of this turnover from the taxable turnover. The assessing officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim holding that the disputed turnover formed part of the price realised for the cement sold and that, therefore, it is includible in the taxable turnover. But, on a further appeal, the Tribunal purporting to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd, v. State of Andhra Pradesh ., allowed the appeal and held that the disputed turnover could not be included in the taxable turnover.2. The supply and...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnappa Asari Vs. the Divisional Panchayat Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ328
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. We shall first take C.M. A No. 583 of 1974. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Chingleput in O.P. No. 28 of 1968 on his file. The appeal itself comes up to this Court under a special statutory provision made under Sub-section (2) of Section 178 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, by virtue of the powers vested in the State Government in relation to Clause (xvi-a) of that section. Particular provision provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against orders of any Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction which is called upon to decide whether a disallowance, surcharge or charge made by a Panchayat Union Council or the Executive Authority of the Panchayat under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, is correct or not. We shall presently refer to the said provision.2. The petitioner functioned as President of Kakkalur Village Panchayat for some time in 1958. Thereafter a new President t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »