Chennai Court March 1977 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.
Mahaveer Prasad Prasan Kumar Jain, Represented by Its Proprietor, Maha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ481
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The writ petition is to prohibit the respondents, the Territory of Pondicherry represented by the Collector of Pondicherry, from enforcing the provisions of the Pondicherry Pawn Brokers Act, 1966 as against the petitioner.2. The petitioner has been carrying on the business of pawn-broking at Villiyanur Road, Nellitope, Pondicherry, after obtaining a licence under the Pondicherry Pawn Brokers Act (XI of 1966). The Collector of Pondicherry inspected the petitioner's shop on 9th May, 1974, and checked some of the account books and also enquired one of the customers. After the said inspection the petitioner was issued with a notice on 10th May, 1974 to show cause why action should not be taken against him for those irregularities. The petitioner submitted an explanation. Not being satisfied with the explanation, the Tahsildar, by an order dated 20th May, 1974, cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deput...
K.T.M.S. Abdul Cader and ors. Vs. the Union of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977Mad386
1. In these petitions the validity of certain proclamations issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, under S. 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with S. 7(1)(c) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on 16-1-1975, is challenged mainly on the ground that the detention orders passed against the petitioners by the State Government under S. 3 of the latter Act which formed the basis for the said impugned proclamations are invalid. These petitions originally came up for hearing before Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., who, after hearing the arguments for some time referred them to a Division Bench, as he felt that the petitions involve constitutional points of considerable public importance. These petitions were then heard by a Division Bench consisting of Paul and Varadarajan, JJ. On account of a difference of opinion between them, they were posted before Natarajan J. as per S. 392 Crl. P. C. Before him it was urged by the State f...
K.T.M.S. Abdul Cader and ors. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: 1977CriLJ1708
Ramanujam, J.1. In these petitions the validity of cerain proclamations issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, Under Section 82(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 7(1)(c) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, on 16-1-1975, is challenged mainly on the ground that the detention orders passed against the petitioners by the State Government Under Section 3 of the latter Act which formed the basis for the said impugned proclamations are invalid. These petitions originally came up for hearing before Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., who, after hearing the arguments for some time referred them to a Division Bench, as he felt that the petitions involve constitutional points of considerable public importance. These petitions were then heard by a Division Bench consisting of Paul and Varadarajan, JJ. On account of a difference of opinion between them, they were posted before Nalarajan J. as per Section 392 Cri. P. C. Before...
Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-ii Vs. Murugan Timber De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1977
Reported in: [1978]113ITR99(Mad)
ISMAIL J. - The assessee is a registered firm of four partners carrying on business in forest contract and timber. It filed a return disclosing income of Rs. 16,950 for the assessment year 1964-65, the relevant accounting period being from November 16, 1962, to March 31, 1963. The Income-tax Officer noticed that during a raid of its place of business made on April 25, 1964, the sale tax authorities seized certain books and slips which disclosed certain sales that had not been accounted for in the regular books and that the sale-tax authorities had determined the turnover at Rs. 7,86,156 as against Rs. 5,20,240 admitted by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee to produce the books and slips that had been seized by the sales tax authorities and which had been returned to it. The assessee did not produce them. The Income-tax Officer thereupon determined the total income as Rs. 24,990 as against Rs. 16,950 returned by the assessee. In so doing, he made an addition o...
G.V. Ramaswami Iyer Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad39
ORDERRamaprasad Rao, J.1. The lower appellate Court was wrong in having held that the respondent did not commit wilful default in the matter of payment of rents. That there was an arrear of Rs. 510/- on the date of petition is not in dispute. But the explanation offered by the tenant-respondent was that she paid the taxes due on the property and after deducting the said amount, only a sum of Rupees 398.85 would be due as and by way of arrears of rent, that even this amount was not payable by her since she lent a sum of Rs. 500/- to the landlord's wife and that it was represented that the rent would be adjusted towards the advance made by her. Though the defenc prima facie appears to be attractive, yet, it should fall to the ground for the reason that the petitioner was taking the precaution of giving biennial notices to the tenant under Exs. A-5, B-2 and A-2 once in 1970, secondly in 1972 and on the last occasion in 1974, reminding her of such arrears of rent. There was no reply to suc...
Ponnuthayee Ammal Vs. Kamakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1977
Reported in: AIR1978Mad226; (1978)1MLJ48
Balasubrahmanyan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal is brought before this court by one Ponnuthayee Ammal, widow of Veerabadra Pillai, in the following circumstances: Veerabadra Pillai has a daughter by another wife. This daughter filed a suit for partition in O. S. No. 25 of 1969. In that suit Ponnuthayee Ammal figured as a party. One of the issues in that suit was whether her marriage with Veerabadra Pillai was void, it having been contracted during the subsistence of an earlier marriage. The finding was that the marriage was void for that reason.2. Ponnuthayee Ammal had children by Veerabadra Pillai. She was anxious to legitimize them, but it was possible to obtain legitimization only if her marriage with Veerabadra Pillai were declared a nullity under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The finding in a collateral suit would not avail the children.3. It is in these circumstances that Ponnuthayee filed an independent proceeding O. P. No. 36 of 1974 under Sections 5(1), 11 and 16...
Prema Metal Works Vs. the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ202
ORDERA.D. Koshal, J.1. M/s. Prema Metal Works, a firm carrying on business in Madras and hereinafter referred to as the firm, imported from Japan cold-rolled pieces of stainless steel having a thickness of 5 mm. and a width of more than 600 mm. each, which were supplied to it in coil form or in straight length as per an invoice, dated the 30th of April, 1969. The Customs authorities levied import duty on the goods under item 63 (20-A) appearing in the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act (hereinafter referred to as the Schedule) and the same was paid by the firm on the 10th of June, 1969.2. On the 5th of July, 1972 the firm claimed a refund of 90% of the duty paid by it on the ground that the goods, imported by it had been exempted from import duty to that extent by notification No. 118, Customs, dated the 20th of August, 1965 issued by the Government of India and amended later from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the notification). The Assistant Collector of Customs reject...
G.V. Ramaswamy Iyer, by Power of Attorney Agent, Panchapakesa Iyer Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1977
Reported in: (1977)2MLJ238
T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.1. The lower appellate, Court was wrong in having held that the respondent did not commit wilful default in the matter of payment of rents. That there was an arrear of Rs. 510 on the date of petition is not in dispute. But the explanation offered by the tenant-respondent was that she paid the taxes due on the property and after deducting the said amount, only a sum of Rs. 398-85p., would be due as and by way of arrears of rent, that even this amount was not payable by her since she lent a sum of Rs. 500 to the landlord's wife and that it was represented that the rent would be adjusted towards the advance made by her. Though the defence prima facie appears to be attractive yet, it should fall to the ground for the reason that the petitioner was taking the precaution of giving biennial notices to the tenant under Exhibits A-5, B-2 and A-2 once in 1970, secondly in 1972 and on the last occasion in 1974 reminding her of such arrears of rent. There was no reply to such...
Lucas T.V.S. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1977
Reported in: 1978(2)ELT711(Mad)
Koshal, J.1. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Company) is a public limited company carrying on business of manufacturing electrical equipment for the automobile industry. In the course of that business, the Company imported aluminium rods which were held by the Customs authorities to be liable to duties of customs under item 70 (1) contained in the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (hereinafter called the Tariff Act) and also to an additional duty (generally known as countervailing duty) equally to the excise duty leviable on aluminium rods under item 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act). According to the company, no counter vailing duty was payable by it and therefore it made a claim for the refund thereof, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras. The company went up in appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs who allowed the refund on the ground that the im...
Lucas T. Vs. S. Ltd. V. Government of IndiA.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1977
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Mad)28
ORDERKoshal, J. - The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the company), is a public limited company carring on business of manufacturing electrical equipment for the automobile industry. In the course of that business, the company imported aluminium rods which were held by the customs authorities to be liable to duties of customs under item 70(1) contained in the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (hereinafter called the Tariff Act) and also to an additional duty (generally known as countervailing duty) equally to the excise duty leviable on aluminium rods under item 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act). According to the company, no counter-vailing duty was payable by it and therefore it made a claim for the refund thereof, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras. The company went up in appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs who allowed the refund on the ground that th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »