Chennai Court January 1978 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.
A. Boake Roberts and Co. (India) Ltd. [Now Bush Boake Allen (India) Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1978
Reported in: [1978]42STC270(Mad)
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. These appeals raise a common question. They relate to the same assessee. The years of assessment are respectively 1964-65, 1968-69, 1965-66 and 1967-68. The question turns on the interpretation to be placed on item 51 in the First Schedule of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as it stood at the relevant time, pertaining to the assessment years with which we are concerned. We shall extract item 51 :_______________________________________________________________Serial Description of the Point of Rate of taxNumber goods levy percent_______________________________________________________________51 Scents and perfumes, pow- At the point of 7ders, snows (including all first sale in thepurpose creams and cold State.and vanishing creams) andscented hair oils.________________________________________________________________2. This item 51 itself is an amendment of an earlier item 61, which read as follows:Scents and perfumes, powders, snows, scented hair oils, scen...
Bakola Pharmaceutical Company Vs. the Union of Government of India, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1978
Reported in: (1979)1MLJ285
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This appeal is taken from the judgment of Ismail, J., dismissing Writ Petition No. 3171 of 1973 which sought the quashing of an order passed by the second respondent herein which is at page 9 of the typed set of papers. Briefly stated this order cancelled a licence held by the appellant in form No. 28 in so far as it related to Homeopathic medicines which are administered by parenteral route. The reasons given in the order s far as we are able to discern are (1) that Clause 2 of Part IX of Schedule F of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 has not been complied with by the licenses, (2) that Homeopathic medicines which are administered by parenteral route do not fall within drugs and medicines under the aforesaid rules and (3) that the administration of Homeopathic drugs by parenteral route has not been recognised in any of the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeial.2. Ismail, J., felt that Homeopathic medicines administered by parenteral route will not fall within the purv...
A. Boake Roberts and Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Board of Revenue.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1978
Reported in: (1978)7CTR(Mad)0246B
P. Govindan Nair, C.J. - The appeals raise a common question. They relate to the same assessee. The years of assessment are respectively 1964-65, 1968-69, 1965-66 and 1967-68. The question turns on the interpretation to be placed on item 51 in Schedule I of the Madras General Sales Tax, 1959 as it stood ar the relevant time pertaining to the assessment years with which we are concerned. We shall extract item 51 :Serial NumberDescription of the goodsPoint of levyRate of tax per cent51Scents and perfumes, powders, snows (including all purposes creams and cold and vanishing creams) and scented hair oils At the point of first sale in the State72. This item 51 itself is an amendment of an earlier item 51 which read as follows :'Scents and perfumes, powers, snows scented hair oils, scented sticks, cosmetics and toilet requisites, except soaps.'3. It was felt that it was necessary to amend item 51 as it stood in those terms which have just now mentioned because of two reasons. It was represen...
P.V. Mohammed Ghouse Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1978
Reported in: AIR1978Mad277; (1978)1MLJ339
P. Govindan Nair, C.J. 1. This appeal is against the order in W. P. No. 3281 of 1977 dismissing the writ petition in limine. The prayer in the writ petition is to call for the records of the respondents in their proceedings in Roc. in G. O. Ms No. 989 P. W. General dated 28-6-1977 of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to conduct proceedings under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) by issue of a writ of certiorari or manda-mus or any other appropriate writ direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice.'2. The notification referred to is seen at page 7 of the typed set of papers. In the third para it states:--'Whereas it has become necessary to acquire the immediate possession of the land specified in the schedule below, the Government of Tamil Nadu hereby directs that the land be acquired under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the said Act.'The notification u...
K. Mohammed Hussain, Receiver of Estate of M.D.T. Kumaraswami Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1978
Reported in: [1981]132ITR866(Mad)
Ramanujam, J. 1. This writ petition is to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any further proceedings in pursuance of the notice dated October 8, 1973, issued by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent by his order dated June 11, 1974. 2. One M. D. T. Kumaraswami Mudaliar died on 25th December, 1957. He had three sons by his legally married wife and four sons other than through his legally married wife. One Thirumalaiyappa Mudaliar, one of his sons, filed a suit for partition in O.S. No. 25 of 1955, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tirunelveli. In that suit, a preliminary decree for partition was passed by the Sub-Court and the same was confirmed by the High Court in A.S. No. 96 of 1961. In those proceedings it has been held that there was a joint family consisting of Kumaraswami Mudaliar and his sons, and that as such the properties possessed by the said joint family are liable to be divided by metes and bounds among the...
Noohu Pathuammal and ors. Vs. Ummathu Ameena and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Mad66
1. The plaintiffs in 0. S. No. 17 of 1970 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram are the appellants. There was one A. P. Mohammed Noohu, who carried on extensive business in Ceylon and acquired properties in India as well as Ceylon during his lifetime. He died on 1st April 1959. On 30th May 1956 prior to his undertaking the Haj pilgrimage, he executed a number of settlements in respect of the properties covered by 'A' schedule to the plaint in favour of his wives and children. He had married two wives ' The first plaintiff is the Indian wife and the first defendant is the Ceylonese wife. He has seven children by his Indian wife, who was also the first wife, and he has six children by his Ceylonese second wife. It is in favour of these two wives and children that the settlement deeds were executed on 30th May 1956.2. After Mohammed Noohu died on 1st April 1959, the plaintiffs filed a suit 0. S. No. 9 of 1964 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Padmanabhapuram, whi...
Trac Industries and Components Ltd. Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1978
Reported in: [1979]43STC120(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. T. C. (R.) Nos. 216 to 219 of 1977 have been filed by the same petitioner. The petitioner is a public limited company, manufacturing trac pins, bolts, nuts and chains which are used as undercarriage parts for crawler tractors and other crawler equipments. For the assessment years 1968-69 to 1970-71, the original assessments were made treating the items manufactured by the petitioner-company as multi-point goods and assessing them at 3 per cent. Subsequently, it was felt by the revenue that the items manufactured and sold by the petitioner-company fell under entry 55 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Hence revision of the assessments for the years 1968-69 to 1970-71 were made under Section 16 of the Act and the turnover of sales of all the items manufactured by the petitioner-company was brought under single point tax. For the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 original assessments themselves were made on the basis that the items manu...
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1978
Reported in: 1979(4)ELT326(Mad)
Ramanujam, J.1. The petitioner herein which is a company engaged m the manufacture of paper imported a simplex rotary sheet cutter in 1969 and it was assessed under item 72(b) read with notification No. 18/61 at 10% as paper making machinery. The Customs Revenue Audit raised an objection that the machine under reference is not a part of paper making machinery as it is only used for cutting the paper already manufactured to marketable sizes and therefore assessable under item 72(b) without the benefit of the said notification. On the basis of the said audit objection a demand was raised on 20-6-1969 for Rs. 98,595. Since the petitioner resisted the demand a show cause notice was issued on 20-6-1969, in terms of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 to show cause why the said sum of Rs. 98,594.64 being the duty short levied should not be collected. The petitioner submitted its explanation on 28-6-1969. In the explanation the petitioner stated that in paper making industry the manufactur...
Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited Vs. the Government of India, Minis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1978
Reported in: 1979CENCUS11D
ORDERRamanujam, J.1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in Order No. 35-A of 1973 on the file of the first respondent & quash the said order dated 15th June 1973.2. This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday the 21st day of December 1977, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, the order of the High Court, dated 14.9.1973, and made herein and the counter affidavits filed herein and records relating to the order in Order No. 35-A of 1973 dated 15.6.73 on the file of the 1st Respondent comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of M/s. B.R. Doha and S. Sunder, Advocates for the petitioners and of Mr. T.Chengalvarayan, Central Government Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›