Chennai Court March 1976 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.
State by Public Prosecutor Vs. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1302
N.S. Ramaswami, J.1. The view taken by the Court below that the sample of pea-flour is not adulterated as defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, is wrong. The report of the Analyst shows that the sample contained 50% of pea-flour and 50% of Bengalgram flour. One had to see whether the sale of the sample to the Food. Inspector is an offence as complained or not Under Section 2(i) of the Act, the word 'adulterated' is defined. There are several Clauses under that Sub-section, namely, Clauses (a) to (1). The question of the sample being below the prescribed standard arises under Clause (1) and certainly not under Clause (a), which applies to the present case. The relevant part of the section reads thus:In this Act unless the context otherwise requires-(1) 'adulterated' - an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated-(a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, or is not of the...
State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Poly-ene General Industries
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC254(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The assessee, manufacturers of polythene tabular film, bags, sheets, etc., had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 13,93,916.72 for the assessment year 1967-68. The assessing authority determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 14,60,108.34 and Rs. 14,09,260.92 respectively. Included in the said turnover was Rs. 43,742.91, which represented rebates allowed by the assessee to its purchasers.2. In order to appreciate the circumstances under which this rebate has been given, a sample of the correspondence between the assessee and its purchasers has been placed before us. For instance, in the letter dated 13th November, 1967, addressed to M/s. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., the assessee acknowledged an enquiry from the said company and quoted for the polythene liners 48'X30'X53' X 500G. These liners are used by the tobacco manufacturers for the purpose of packing tobacco so as to keep the tobacco free from the effects of humidity, etc. The price quoted ...
M. Muthusavari Pillai and Sons Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC359(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. In these two tax cases a common question of law is raised, though one case is in respect of the assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the other under the Central Sales Tax Act.2. The assessees are dealers in cotton bandings and cotton ropes. In the assessment proceedings the assessees claimed a certain turnover relating to bandings and ropes as exempt under Section 8 read with item 4 of the Third Schedule in so far as the assessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is concerned and under Section 9(2) read with Section 8A of the Central Sales Tax Act so far as the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act is concerned. The assessing officer held that the bandings and ropes sold by the assessees are textiles within the meaning of item 4 of the Third Schedule to the Act and that, therefore, the turnover relating to the same is entitled to exemption. Accordingly, the said turnover was deleted...
Goodman and Company, by Its Proprietor R.C. Mallikeswaran Vs. R.S. Thi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ221
S. Maharajan, J.1. The plaintiff, Goodman and Company, by its proprietor Mallikeswaran has filed this revision petition against the judgment of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry, dismissing the plaintiff's suit against Thirunavukarasu, the respondent herein, with costs.2. The suit itself was filed for recovery of possession of a radio set from the defendant, or in the alternative, for' recovery of Rs. 450 being the value thereof. The case of the plaintiff was that in the month of July, 1965, the defendant' came to the plaintiff's company for the purchase of a radio set. The plaintiff was willing to sell the plaint schedule radio set to the defendant, but the defendant said he would observe the functioning of the radio set for 2 or 3 days and if he was satisfied with the quality of the set, he would pay for the same. But the defendant neither paid the money nor returned the radio set. The suit itself was filed on 23rd February, 1971. The defendant denied the plaint allegation a...
S. Ramaswami Gounder Vs. M. Pattabhiraman Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ243; (1976)2MLJ437
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The landlord is the revision petitioner before me. He purchased door No. 303, Jawahar Bazaar, Karur (a non-residential building) and adjacent door No. 304, under Exhibit A-7, dated 19th January, 1970, for valuable consideration from one S.V.M.M. Mohammed, with the object of demolishing and reconstructing it into a single unit and to carry on his business. The respondent in this civil revision petition was a tenant of door No. 303 from its previous owner on a monthly rental of Rs. 40. Though the two shops are structurally different, they constitute a single building. Immediately after his purchase, he informed the tenant to vacate, but his request was not complied with. Hence the petition for eviction on the ground of personal use and occupation and his requirement as bona fide. The contest by the tenant was that he had been in the schedule premises for about 40 years and the purchase by the landlord was with the full knowledge of the tenancy rights Originally there ...
S.W. Thambi Raj Vs. the State Bank of India by Chief General Manager o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ421
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein was working as Superintendent, Savings Bank Department, in the head office of the State Bank of India till July, 1970. In July, 1970 he was posted as a Branch Manager, Vridhachalam Branch. Before going on transfer, he had applied for a loan of Rs. 8,700 for the purchase of a car. The loan was sanctioned on 18th July, 1970 and credited in his current account. Though as per the conditions of the grant of loan, the petitioner has to purchase the car within one month from the date of the sanction of the loan, the petitioner admittedly did not purchase the car, within that time. He, however, informed the head office by his letter dated 1st March, 1971 that he had paid a sum of Rs. 8,000 to one Ramaswami Odayar for the purchase of an Ambassador Car MSM. 5589 at a price of Rs. 16,500. He later informed the head office by his letter dated 6th March, 1971 that the transaction will be completed before 15th of April, 1971 and that if it is not possibl...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. C.M. Tiles
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: [1976]38STC440(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 38,692.58 and Rs. 17,096.24. He claimed exemption on a turnover of Rs. 21,596.34 on the ground that he has undertaken works contracts for mosaic flooring and that the sum of Rs. 21,596.34 represented labour charges which were separately shown in the sale bills. This explanation was accepted by the assessing officer and the total and taxable turnover was determined as reported.2. On some information, the assessing officer called for the books again for verification. As the assessee failed to produce the accounts, the assessing officer issued a notice under Section 16 proposing to revise the assessment and to refix the turnover disallowing the exemption given previously on the turnover of Rs. 21,596.34 and proposing to estimate the sales of sanitary goods at Rs. 13,000. Thus, he proposed to reassess the petitioner on a total turnover of Rs. 51,692.58, including the sum of Rs. 17,...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. India Pistons Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: [1978]42STC134(Mad)
V.Ramaswami, J.1. These two tax revision cases relate to the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. The assessing authority rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of two items of turnover which alone need be mentioned here. One item was the turnover relating to sales of iron scraps. The turnover in respect of this item for 1965-66 was Rs. 4,91,332.83 and for 1966-67 it was Rs. 6,80,138.20. The second claim related to the includibility in the taxable turnover of certain amount representing sales return and bonus discount granted to the customers. In respect of these two claims,` the assessee preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee is a manufacturer and seller of automobile ancillary parts, industrial engine parts, tractor and agricultural parts and electrical components of engines and the assessee was not a dealer in iron scraps. The sale of iron scraps was also not in the course of their business and t...
Management of Spencer and Co. Ltd. Vs. Additional Labour Court and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: (1980)IILLJ469Mad
S. Mohan, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the award made by the Additional Labour Court, Madras in I.D. No. 123 of 1972, dated 1st July, 1972. The short facts are as follows. The second respondent, workman (R. Kannan) was on leave from 22nd October, 1970, to 19th of November, 1970. Normally, therefore, he should have resumed duty on the 20th November, 1970. On 24-11-1970, he made an application for leave saying that he went to Gujarat to attend on his sickly wife and there he had taken ill. However, he did not produce medical certificate which he promised to do on resumption of duty. A similar letter was written on the 17th December, 1970. Here again, it was not accompanied by medical certificate. On the 18th December, 1970, the writ petitioner wrote to the second respondent calling upon him to produce the medical certificate in support of his alleged sickness. But, nothing emanated. Therefore, on 29th of December, 1970, resorting to company's staff Regulation 16, the writ ...
Mayava Koundar and ors. Vs. Subbaraya Koundar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ113
M. M. Ismail, J.1. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 135 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Villupuram who succeeded before the trial Court but lost before the first appellate Court are the appellants herein. They are the legal representatives of one Duraisami Kounder while the plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Rangasami Kounder. Rangasami Kounder and Duraisami Kounder were brothers, Duraisami Kounder being the elder. They had a sister by name Sowbagiammal. The suit property was purchased in her name under Ex. B-5 dated 27th September, 1937. It has been found and it is not disputed that Sowbagiammal died on. 30th July, 1946 leaving no issue, having become a widow at a young age. Equally, there is no controversy that on the death of Sowbagiammal leaving no issue, the two brothers Rangasamy Kounder and Duraisami Kounder would be her heirs entitled to get the property in equal moieties. When the plaintiffs instituted the suit for partition and separate po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »