Chennai Court September 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.
Minor Meenakshisundaram and anr. Vs. Paul Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1976
Reported in: (1977)1MLJ537
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are the owners of a site given in the plaint schedule. They purchased the site on 5th May, 1966 by means of a registered sale deed. The defendant had taken the site from the previous owners on ground rent and had put up a shed for his automobile workshop. The defendant orally attorned to the plaintiffs and continued as their tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 30. He had agreed to pay the rent for each month on or before the last day of the month. However, the defendant defaulted to pay the rent from May, 1966 to November, 1966. The plaintiffs were, therefore, obliged to file a suit against me defendant for the recovery of the arrears upto November, 1967 in O.S. No. 43 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin. A decree was passed against the defendant. The defendant again defaulted to pay the rent due from December, 1967 to November, 1969 amounting to Rs. 720. As the defendant had been defaulting to pay the re...
M. Palaniswamy Gounder Vs. Nachimuthu Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ131
V. Sethuraman, J.1. The first defendant in O.S. No. 862 of 1968 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, is the appellant herein. The plaintiffs, Nachimuthu Gounder and Palaniswami Gounder, are brothers. They have another brother by name Chinnaswamy Gounder, who is the second defendant in the suit. The first defendant is the son of one of the sisters of the plaintiffs and the second defendant. The father of the plaintiffs and the second defendant and the maternal grandfather of the first defendant is one Ramaswamy Gounder. The A schedule properties to the plaint are 3 items conveyed under Exhibits A-2 to A-4 dated 28th March, 1949, 28th August, 1950 and 21st September, 1950 in the name of the said Ramaswamy Gounder. The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint was that though the sale deed Exhibits A-2 to A-4 were taken in the name of the said Ramaswamy Gounder, he did not pay the purchase price for the sale transaction out of his own funds, but that the purchase price came out of th...
Chand Basha Vs. Pyari Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1976
Reported in: (1978)1MLJ46
ORDERG. Ramanujam, J.1. The respondent herein obtained a decree dated 12th. April, 1973 for eviction of the appellant herein O.S. No.7420 of 1971 an the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The decree granted the appellant four months' time to vacate. On 5th August, 1974 the said decree was put into execution in E.P.No. 622 of 1974. By that time Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act here in after referred to as the main Act was amended by Act XXIII of 1973. As a result of the said amendment, the building in respect of which the decree for eviction was obtained by the respondent in the said suit came within the purview of the main Act. Taking advantage of that situation, the appellant contended before the executing Court that the decree for eviction cannot be executed after the coming into force of the Amending Act. This objection was, however, refected by the executing Court, and the execution proceedings were allowed to go on.2. On appeal, the lower Appe...
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Saraswathy Kurwath Damodaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1976
Reported in: [1977]39STC542(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The State of Tamil Nadu has preferred this tax revision petition under Section 38 of Tamil Nadu Act No. 1 of 1959 against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19th January, 1971. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein was dealing in sea-foods in Kerala. Under the export promotion scheme he obtained an import licence for import of paper and paper boards in respect of the export of sea-foods made by him. He utilised that licence by importing paper and paper boards and sold the same to Basanth Paper House, Madras. The turnover with reference to this transaction was Rs. 49,358.57 and sales tax was assessed at 2 per cent thereof. The dealer preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. When the respondent preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the late Kurwath Damodaran being a dealer in sea-fo...
Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Vs. N. Subramaniam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC434(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. This is a revision under Section 38 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, preferred by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Madurai, dated 7th December, 1967. The dealer's assessment was reopened pursuant to the discovery of certain documents. We are not referring to all the facts, because the revision is confined to a very narrow point. One of the items which was included in the revised assessment was a sum of Rs. 2,56,118.61 said to be indicated in the statement F filed for the purpose of the case. When the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the inclusion of this amount, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner scrutinised the slips on the basis of which the amount was arrived at and pointed out that there was no evidence to show that all these amounts represented turnover in respect of sales or purchases and there were several items which showed th...
Easun Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1976
Reported in: [1977]40STC220(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The petitioner purports to prefer this tax revision case under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1959 against an order dated 28th November, 1969, of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras. In respect of the assessment year 1961-62, the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs. 50,530.84 by way of sales tax from its customers, when the petitioner itself, was not liable to pay that amount to the Government as sales tax. Consequently, the assessing authorities relying on Section 22(3) of the Act recovered the said sum of Rs. 50,530.84 from the petitioner. Against this order of the assessing authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), Madras-1. The appellate authority reduced the amount so demanded by Rs. 17,945.63, with the result, the demand under Section 22(3) was reduced to Rs. 32,585.21. The petitioner preferred a further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. By that time, it had been decided by this co...
R. Thathadesika Thathachariar and anr. Vs. K.V. Alagia Manavala Jeersw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1976
Reported in: AIR1978Mad210
P.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit are the appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal. The suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 4. They are residents of Kancheepuram and are Thengalai Vaishnavites holding offices in Sri Devaraja Swami Temple. The suit was filed for themselves and as representatives of the entire body of Thengalai Vaishnavites of Kancheepuram, who are office holders and mirasdars of Sri Devaraja Swami Temple. The dispute mainly relates to the namam which the temple elephant should bear. The elephant died on 28-3-1965. According to the planitiffs, the trustees were making an attempt to get an elephant themselves and introduce it with Vadagalai namam. According to the plaintiffs, the established usage of the temple is that the elephant should have only a Thengalai namam. As the plaintiffs apprehended that the trustees would induct an elephant with a Vadagalai namam, they offered to present an elephant provided it bore the Thengalai namam. They also apprehended...
R. Thathadesika Thathachariar and anr. Vs. K.V. Alagia Manavala Jeevas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1976
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ247
P.S. Kailasam, C.J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit are the appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal. The suit was filed by plaintiffs 1 to 4. They are residents of Kancheepuram and are Thengalai Vaishnavites holding Offices in Sri Devaraja Swami Temple. The suit was filed for themselves and as representatives of the entire body of Thengalai Vaishanavites of Kancheepuram, who are office holders and mirasdars of Sri Devaraja Swami Temple. The dispute mainly relates to the namam which the temple elephant should bear. The elephant died on 28th March, 1965. According to the plaintiff, the trustees were making an attempt to get an elephant themselves and introduce it with Vadakalai namam According to the plaintiffs, the established usage of the temple is that the elephant should have only a Thengalai namam. As the plaintiffs apprehended that the trustees would induct an elephant with a Vadagalainamam, they offered to present an elephant provided it bore the Thengalai namam. They also appreh...
Kodur Orange Produce Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1976
Reported in: [1977]110ITR124(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act '), has referred the following question of law for the opinion of this court :' Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that penalty could be imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(a) for the delay in submission of the return when at the same time interest under the proviso to Section 139 had also been imposed '2. The facts necessary for the understanding of the above question are as follows :3. The case relates to two assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67. For the first assessment year, the income-tax return was due on September 30, 1965, but the same was filed on July 1, 1967, i.e., after a delay of about 21 months. For the second assessment year, the return was due on September 30, 1966, but the same was filed on October 17, 1967, i.e., after a delay of about 12 months. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings against the...
Havakkal Estate Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1976
Reported in: [1977]109ITR59(Mad)
Ismail, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench, under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court:'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in Jaw in holding that Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules is inapplicable for determining the taxable portion of the sum of Rs. 10,381 representing the income derived by the assessee-firm as lessee under the deed dated October 21, 1964 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the subsequent operations carried on by the asscssee were not of the nature of basic agricultural operations is correct ?' 2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture of tea. It owns tea estates as well as a factory for the manufacture of tea. Sometimes tea is also manufactured from leaves bought from outsiders. By an indenture dated October 21, 1964, the asse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »