Chennai Court April 1976 Judgments
Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Vs. K. Behanan Thomas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC325(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This tax revision case arises out of an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal exempting the turnover in question. Under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the assessee was finally assessed to tax on a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,59,291.31 and Rs. 1,37,880.15 respectively for the year 1967-68 in the assessment proceedings of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated 3rd September, 1968. On a further scrutiny of the records, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore, considered that out of the consideration of Rs. 19,500 for the transfer of the branch at Ooty, the sum of Rs. 18,929.71 representing sale value of the closing stock held at Ooty branch was wrongly exempted from payment of tax and that it was not eligible for exemption as it did not come within the scope of the provision of Rule 6(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules. Accordingly, notice was issued to the assessee calling for its objections, if any, to the proposed revision of assessm...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Murugaiyan Vs. Jayaveera Pandia Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1700
ORDERRatnavel Pandian, J.1. The complainant in P. R. C. No. 1 of 1974 on the file of the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tiruthuraipoondi, has preferred this revision petition against the order of the learned Magistrate discharging respondents 1 to 6 (accused 1 to 6) holding that offences alleged against accused 1 to 6 are not triable exclusively by the Court of Session and that it did not warrant their committal Under Section 209(a) Crl. P. C. and that no prima facie case had been made out against accused L to 6 so as to convert the preliminary register case as a calendar case and proceed against the accused.2. The crux of the indictment of the complainant is as follows: The petitioner complainant preferred a private complaint against these respondents for offences Under Sections 147, 460, 307, 342 and 323 I. P. C. alleging that on 17-11-1973, at about 10-30 p. m. while the complainant and one Sivaraj were sleeping in the room in the Lorry Booking office at Nagapattinam, about 50 person...
Tag this Judgment!Soundharathammal Vs. the Tiruchirapalli Mavattam Mahasuruli Alaya Bakt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ125
S. Natarajan, J.1. The defendant in O.S. No. 115 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Pudukottai has preferred this second appeal against the reversing judgment of the District Judge of Pudukottai in A.S. No. 253 of 1974. The suit relates to the performance of the annual Gurupuja festival and customary, functions of, Sri Suruli Andavar in the village of Vadugapatti.2. The case of the respondent Sangham, who is the plaintiff, was that one Suruli Andavar Swamigal, who was known in his purvasramam as Palaniandia Pillai was a noble and eminent saint and had a lot of devotees and worshippers before he attained samadhi. Suruli Andavar Swamigal was a bachelor and after he attained mukthi, his followers and worshippers built a samadhi for him at Vadugapatti in Kulathur taluk about thirty-five years ago. A lingam was installed over the samadhi. On one side of the samadhi a Vinayakar temple has been built and on the other side the sacred Vel of Lord Subramania has been inst...
Tag this Judgment!Bangaru Chettiar Vs. San Basha Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad1
Ramanujam, J.1. The question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the benefit of Sec. 23-C of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists' Relief Act 1938, introduced by the Amending Act 8 of 1973, could be availed of by a judgment-debtor whose property has been sold after 24-1-1973, the date of coming into force of the said amending Act. This question has been referred to us by Mohan J., in view of the divergent opinions now prevailing on the said question.2. The respondents herein obtained a decree against the appellant herein in O. S. 703 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, and in execution of that decree applied for the sale of the judgment-debtor's properties in E. P. No. 1187 of 1973. The appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Act 4 of 1938 for stay of execution of the decree so as to enable him to apply under Section 19 of the Act for scaling down the decree debt. In that application, stay of execution was ordered on 28-4-1973. The...
Tag this Judgment!Subbammal and ors. Vs. the President, the Tenkasi Co-operative Urban B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad92
ORDER1. As both the above cases arise out of the same proceedings and involve identical issues, they are dealt with together.2. An enquiry into the constitution, working and financing condition of the Tenkasi Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, was ordered under Sec. 65 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 by the Deputy Registrar, Tirunelveli in his proceedings dated 22-11-1965. A preliminary report of the enquiry Officer was submitted on 19-7-1966 and it showed that there has been misappropriation of the Bank's funds. As a follow-up of the said report the Deputy Registrar issued surcharge notices dated 6-8-1966 under Section 71 of the Act to one M. Chockalingam Pillai the ex-President. and N.T. Pannayar, the ex-Vice-President, and 8 others who were Ex-directors of the Bank. A surcharge notice was also issued to one R. Ulaganathan Ex-clerk of the bank who has alleged to have misappropriated the funds of the bank. At that stage the bank was su...
Tag this Judgment!theagaraya Chetty Educational Institutions, represented by the Managin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ446
1. This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment of Ramanujam, J., by the second respondent in Writ Petition No. 7444 of 1975. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, Dr G. Madan Mohan Rao, praying for the issue of a writ of a mandamus directing the respondents, namely, The State of Tamil Nadu, Theagaroya Chetty Educational Institutions represented by the Managing Committee's Secretary and the Managing Committee, to implement the provisional of Section 19 of Ordinance 17 of 1975 so far as it related to the order of suspension passed against him on 26th September, 1975.2. The first respondent is the Principal and Professor of Zoology in Sir Theagaraya College, Madras. On 26th May, 1975, the Committee of Management served on him a memo, of charges. He was asked to give his explantion before 1st July, 1975. The Committee of Management proposed to convene a meeting on 25th August, 1975, to consider the charges framed against him. The appellant filed a petition, see...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. V.V.S. Sarma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR778(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The Income-tax Act, 1961, was extended to the Union Territory of Pondicherry by the Taxation Laws (Extension to Union Territories) Regulation III of 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Regulation') with effect from the first day of April, 1963. The extension was subject to certain modifications made by the same Regulation. Prior to such extension, there was a French income-tax law in force in the now Union Territory of Pondicherry, and that law was also repealed by the Regulation with effect from the first day of April, 1963. 2. Under the scheme of the French taxation laws, the ' previous year ' was the calendar year and the assessment year, the subsequent calendar year. Thus, for the year ending December 31, 1962, the assessees were taxed under the then existing law in the assessment year 1963. Since the Income-tax Act, 1961, was extended by the Regulation to the Union Territory of Pondicherry and that came into force with effect from the first day of April, 1963, the inc...
Tag this Judgment!M. Karunnanidhi Vs. the Union of India, New Delhi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Mad192
1. This petition is filed by Mr. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Notification No. SO-74(E) dated 3-2-1976, issued by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms, Government of India, under S. 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1952, and quash the same. The affidavit filed in support of this petition, after setting out the history of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which was running the Government from 1967 upto 31st January 1976, refers to the proclamation issued by the President of India on 31-1-1976 under Art. 356 of the Constitution of India assuming to himself the functions of the Government of the State of Tamil Nadu and the powers of the Government of the State, suspending the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Council of Ministers in the State and dissolving the Legislative Assembly. The Proclamation im...
Tag this Judgment!A. Palaniappa Maniyagar Vs. Andiappa Maniyagar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1976
Reported in: (1976)2MLJ440
ORDERT. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The lower Court misdirected itself when it refused to decide in a petition under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, and directed the same to be posted along with suit. Under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, the Court is bound to see whether the allegation of the parties that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, is true or not.2. In the instant case, the parties not only filed a compromise memo, but let in evidence to show that there was an adjustment outside the Court which was in pursuance of a lawful agreement. The Court is bound to enquire into it and find whether the adjustment as claimed is true or not. If it is so satisfied, it shall record the compromise and pass a decree in terms thereof. There is of course, no indication in Order 23, Rule 3,, Civil Procedure Code, as to what has to-be done by the Court when it is not satisfied that there was such an adjustment as pleaded. Obviously, if the...
Tag this Judgment!M. Ct. Muthuraman Vs. Second Income-tax Officer, City Circle Ii, Madra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1976
Reported in: [1968]69ITR432(Mad)
RAMPRASADA RAO J. - A Hindu undivided family consisting of the assessee and his son as one branch and his uncle Meyyappa as the other suffered a partition on December 29, 1948, by which one of the assets of the joint family, namely, 15/21 share in a partnership at Ipoh with the Vilasam 'M.S.S.' was divided. For the years following the partial partition as above, each branch filed their individual returns of income. In particular, the assessee filed voluntarily such returns apparently under section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, for the three years 1950-51, 1951-52, and 1952-53. Such returns were respectively filed on September 5, 1950, February 12, 1952, and September 24, 1952. The revenue did not consider the returns so filed but initiated proceedings against the assessee under section 34(1)(a) of the Act and assessed the assessee accordingly. In the first instance, the Income-tax Officer rejected the contentions of the assessee that section 34(1)(a) could not be invoked, when no or...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »