Chennai Court July 1981 Judgments
Kandasami Vs. Food Inspector, Athoor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ963
Natarajan, J.1. This revision comes before this Bench on a reference made by one of us (Maheswaran J.) regarding the correctness of the view taken by Paul J. in Cr.R.C. No. 7 of 1978 in his order dated 18th June 1979. 2. The revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Salem division confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 7(1) and Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(1)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed on him by the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 2, Salem. The conviction came to be awarded in the following circumstances. On 29th December 1976 at about 9.15 a.m. the Food Inspector of Attur found the petitioner to be selling milk and purchased from him 750 milliliters of milk for purpose of analysis. The milk was sealed in three clean bottles in observance of all formalities and one...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Kuppuswamy and Sons Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ277
Sethuraman, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against a suo motu revision made by the Board of Revenue of an assessment of sales tax for the year 1971-72. The assessee is a dealer in cotton seeds and oilcakes. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who checked the accounts in order to verify the correctness of the return filed by the assessee noticed some defects and irregularities in the accounts. He considered that there was suppression of sales and he added a sum of Rs. 2,54,894.50. This was on the basis that on a shandy day, namely, 6th December, 1971, there was an inspection of the assessee's premises in which there were slips, which covered a turnover of Rs. 7,282.70. The view of the assessing authority was that there must have been similar suppressions on the other 35 days of shandy and that is how the figure arrived at from the slips was multiplied by 35. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who after elaborately discussing the facts and the contention...
Tag this Judgment!Mehar Baba Brick Works Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: [1983]53STC141(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 14th April, 1971, for the assessment year 1969-70. 2. The assessee carries on business in the manufacture and sale of bricks. The total and taxable turnover for the relevant assessment year was fixed at Rs. 2,76,967.37 and Rs. 2,04,892 respectively by an order dated 23rd October, 1970, and on that order, the assessee was also granted exemption from tax in respect of transport charges, that is, charges in transporting of bricks from the brick klin to the site of the purchasers. The business place of the assessee was inspected by the Intelligence Wing, Group IX, Madras, on 31st October, 1974. It was found from the report of the Intelligence Wing that in all the contracts the delivery of goods were made at the purchasers' site and that the freight charges collected by the dealer represented only the pre-sale charges. A notice for proposed assessment was duly served on the ass...
Tag this Judgment!New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. N. Ganapathy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Mad380; [1983]54CompCas619(Mad); (1982)1MLJ305
1. On 18th Mar. 1975, at about 1 P.M., one Kalidas was coming on his cycle near the Town Hall, Nethaji Road, Cuddalore. The bus bearing registration number MDB 1291, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Kalidas and caused him multiple injuries resulting in his instantaneous death. The parents of the deceased, respondents 1 and 2 herein, filed claim petition No. 24 of 1975 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, claiming a compensation of Rs. 75,000. The vehicle was originally owned by M.Thiagaraian and it was transferred in favour of G. Govindan on 15-8-1974, and they are arrayed as respondents 3 and 4 herein. New India Insurance Company, with whom the vehicle was insured, is the appellant herein. The 3rd respondent wanted to be absolved of t4e liability by pointing out that long before the accident, he had parted with the, ownership of the vehicle to and in favour of the, 4th respondent, The appellant herein, the Insurance company con...
Tag this Judgment!C.P. Kuppuswamy and Sons Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: [1982]51STC143(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. The present appeal has been filed against a suo motu revision made by the Board of Revenue of an assessment of sales tax for the year 1971-72. The assessee is a dealer in cotton seeds and oilcakes. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer who checked the accounts in order to verify the correctness of the return filed by the assessee noticed some defects and irregularities in the accounts. He considered that there was suppression of sales and he fadded a sum of Rs. 2,54,894.50. This was on the basis that on a shandy day, namely, 6th December, 1971, there was an inspection of the assessee's premises in which there were slips, which covered a turnover of Rs. 7,282.70. The view of the assessing authority was that there must have been similar suppressions on the other 35 days of shandy and that is how the figure arrived at from the slips was multiplied by 35. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who after elaborately discussing the facts and the contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Uthirapathi Servai and anr. Vs. K.S. Thirumalai Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1981
Reported in: (1982)2MLJ2
T. Sathiadev, J.1. The two petitioners are tenants and the present revision is filed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, which directed the petitioners to deliver an extent of 2.64 standard acres, which they are holding in excess of the ceiling limit fixed under Tamil Nadu Act of LVIII of 1961. The Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Authorised Officer, while disposing of an appeal filed before it under section 78 of the Act LVIII of 1961.2. The Authorised Officer initiated action under the Act on the application of the Ian d owners to resume their lands in Karuvelangulam village of an extent of 3.8 acres from the petitioners herein, on the ground that they are jointly cultivating the lands beyond the ceiling limit. The first petitioner herein filed a petition stating that he is not a member of an undivided Hindu family as claimed and that, even during the lifetime of their father late Lakshmana Servai, there was an oral partition, which took place 9 years back an...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1981
Reported in: (1982)30CTR(Mad)170; [1982]133ITR34(Mad)
Sethuraman, J.1. In these two references, the following common question of law has been referred to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the income received by the assessee by way of sub-contracts and sale of scraps amounting to Rs. 6,472 for the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 48,302 for the assessment year 1969-70 should be considered as relatable to priority industry and hence as qualifying for deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee is a company carrying on the business in the manufacture and sale of air-compressor equipments for automobile vehicles. It had taken sub-contracts from various other companies connected with the manufacture of automobile spare parts, and sold scraps, being the by-product of its manufacturing activities. The original assessment on the asses-sec for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 were made on March 31, 1971, and April 2, 1971, respectively, allowing the relief under Section 80-I wit...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppiah Servai and ors. Vs. Nagavalli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1362
ORDER1. First accused for an offence under Section 495 I.P.C. and accused 2 to 7 for an offence under Section 495 read with Section 109 I.P.C. faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Madurai. The learned Magistrate acquitted accused 5 to 7 and convicted accused 1 to 4 as charged and sentenced them to six months rigorous imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence, accused 1 to 4 filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Madurai in Crl. A.P. 13 of 1979, The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The present petition is by accused 1 to 4 against the conviction and sentence confirmed by the lower appellate court. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows : Accused 1 and 4 are the sons of accused 2 and 3. The complainant, P.W. 1, was living with her maternal uncle, P.W. 2. Accused 2 to 4 negotiated marriage alliance for the first accused and P.W. 1 and negotiatio...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Thirupuranthakaswamy Devasthanam Represented by Its Executive Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1981
Reported in: (1988)1MLJ26
Sathiadev, J.Plaintiff in O.S. No. 14 of 1979 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruvallur is the appellant, and the three defendants are respondents herein. The suit was laid for declaration, possession and for directing the trust defendant to account for the income of the plaint 'A' Schedule properties and for mesne profits.2. In the plaint, it is claimed as follows: Plaint 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties belong to the plaintiff Devasthanam and they have been endowed in favour of the temple, and they partake the character of the property held in trust by the person in management of them. Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 10, 12 and 13 of 'A' schedule have been given to the temple for its upkeeping and for Deepa Kainkariam. Items 4 and 11 were got in exchange of the properties belonging to the Devasthanam by the then trustees, and items 1 and 7 are temple properties (origin of the grant is not traceable). Items 'B' schedule jewels belong to Devasthanam, and they have been endowed from time to time by va...
Tag this Judgment!In Re Jagannathan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1981
Reported in: 1982CriLJ1142
ORDER1. There were three accused before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C.C. No. 383 of 1978, who were accused of offences under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a) read with S. 2(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. They were found guilty of the said offences by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The accused appealed against the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge, East Thanjavur, A. 1 filing C.A. No. 219 of 1978 and A. 2 and A. 3, C.A. 222 of 1978. The learned Sessions Judge allowed C.A. No. 219 of 1978 acquitting A. 1 and dismissed C.A. 222 of 1978 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court on A. 2 and A. 3. The present revision is filed by A. 2 and A. 3 against the order of the learned Sessions-Judge. 3. The case of the prosecution is brie...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »