Chennai Court October 1951 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.
Gadireddy Peda Narasimhalu Naidu and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad480; [1952]21ITR70(Mad)
Satyanarayana Rao, J. 1. This application under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act relates to the assessment year 1943-44, accounting year ending with March 1943. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in cloth. It manufactures and also sells dyed cloths. During the assessment year the assessee returned a profit of Rs. 4200 in respect of his business on a turnover of Rs. 6,09,649. This return of the profits was not accepted by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the inventories produced by him in respect of the cloth dyed were incomplete and unreliable and that the purchases made were not properly accounted for either under sales or under the closing stock. Out of the turnover of six lakhs odd, Rs. 2,52,007 related to sales of cloth in terms of bales or wholesale business and the profit in respect of it returned by the assesses came to about 8 per cent. on the turnover or Rs. 21,000. This was accepted by the department but in respect of the retail sales of Rs. 3,57,6...
S. Ananthakrishnan Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad395; (1952)1MLJ208
1.This is an application made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a Law Graduate of the Madras University. According to the statements made in his affidavit in support of the application, he has completed the prescribed term of apprenticeship and passed the Bar Council examinations in Practice and Procedure and has complied with all the requirements prescribed under the rules framed by the Madras Bar Council under the Indian Bar Councils Act. He is an applicant to be admitted to the rolls of this High Court as an advocate thereof. His complaint and the relief which he seeks from this Court are thus set out in the following paragraphs in his affidavit:"3. I am a citizen of India. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India secures to mo the right to practise any profession. I am desirous of practising the profession of law, and with that view, I have applied to be enrolled as an Advocate of this Honourable Court.4. Under Section 8 of the Act 1 will not be deemed t...
Oruganti Hanumappa Vs. the State and Ans.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1951
Reported in: (1951)2MLJ662
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. In this warrant case, after a charge has been framed, on the death of the complainant, there is no termination of all the proceedings, as seems to have been assumed by the Magistrate below. The order made by the Magistrate is, therefore, undoubtedly illegal.2. The further question which has to be considered, after coming to that conclusion is, should I in revision formally set aside the acquittal and direct the Magistrate to continue the trial from the point at which he was when he passed the order of acquittal.3. This I am not prepared to do, for the two reasons, that on the same cause of action a civil suit has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent and a decree is stated to have been obtained, and the matter is said to be Under appeal. Secondly this criminal case itself has arisen in 1949 and today we are at the end of 1951.4. It would not be proper exercise of revisional jurisdiction to order further enquiry in these circumstances. This petition is...
Commr. for Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras Vs. Vinayakar Arud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Mad407; (1952)1MLJ282
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, against the judgment of Rajagopalan J. setting aside its order dated 22-2-1949 in and by which they declared that the income from the property, namely, premises No. 32, Vinaitheerthavinayakar Koil Street, Kosapet, Madras, is intended for the performance of Arudra festival in the temple of Sri Vinaitheertha Vinayakar in the said locality and that the income is a specific endowment as defined in Section 9 (11-A), Madras Act 2 of 1927.2. In or about 1908 some of the residents of the said locality formed themselves into an unregistered society with the object of collecting funds and performing festivals in the temple of Sri Vinaitheerthavinayakar, Kosapet, at the time of the Arudra Darsanam. In 1913 the premises in question were purchased in the name of one of the members of the society, but evidently with the moneys collected by way of subscriptions from the members of the society. There is no dispute th...
Kandaswami Mudali Vs. K.R. Narasimha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad582; (1951)IIMLJ623
1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Chandrasekhara Aiyar I. confirming the decision of the lower Court by which that Court set aside a sale at the instance of the judgment-debtor -- 98th defendant in the suit. What happened was that, after the passing of a mortgage decree against various defendants the 93th defendant in O.S. No. 194 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Court of Coimba-tore had to pay a certain sum of money to the decree-holder plaintiff and he was in possession of a certain item of property. There was an agreement between the 98th defendant and the decree-holder that that' property would not be sold because a certain sum of money was paid by the 98th defendant. The result was an adjustment and an agreement that the item of mortgaged property belonging to the 98th defendant would not be sold. In contravention of that agreement, a sale took place, and the proclaimed property was purchased by the present appellant. The respondent-98th defendant put in an application, und...
S. Arunachala Goundan Vs. K.S. Akhileshwara Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad158; (1951)2MLJ627
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against an order refusing to entertain a complaint within the limits of Coimbatore district on the ground that it should have been filed within the limits of Travancore-Cochin State. 2. The brief facts are: The complainant and the accused were parties to a civil suit numbered as O. S. NO. 217 of 1950, District Munsiff's Court, Coimbatore. They entered into a compromise under which the accused was constituted agent for the purpose of making collections for the complainant in regard to the distribution of a picture called 'Mangayarkarasi' in the State of Travancore and that the accused was to remit the sums to the complainant in Coimbatore district. There had been default and it is stated that the accused had been swindling moneys and was not accounting for the same. Therefore the complaint was laid in Coimbatore. 3. The learned Sessions Judge citing five decisions held that the complaint ought to be laid in Travancore S...
R.N. Vallinayagam Pillai, Proprietor of Sri Shanmugananda Touring Talk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad528; (1952)1MLJ279
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. The petitioner applied to the District Magistrate, Tirunelveli the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, to run a touring cinema called 'Sri Shanmugananda Touring Talkies' at Mela Ambasamudram village. He had previously obtained the necessary licence under thePlaces of Public Resort Act, paid the prescribed fee for the license and he states in his affidavit that he has complied with other rules and conditions under the Cinematograph Act. The District Magistrate passed an order on 4-12-1950 refusing to grant a licence to him. It is now common ground that this refusal was because of certain instructions issued by the Government in two orders dated 5-5-1950 and 11-11-1950. In the first of these orders, the Government instructed licensing authorities to restrict the number of touring cinemas in places where there were permanent cinemas in order to prevent unhealthy competition and to ensure public safety. In places where there was only one permanent cinema, t...
S.S. Velayudham Pillai Vs. the Governor-general in Council, South Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad783; (1952)1MLJ235
1. This second appeal came up in the first instance before Viswanatha Sastri J. who considered it desirable that it should be heard by a Bench as the decision in the case was likely to affect a number of suits and appeals of the same type.2. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the appellant originally against the South Indian Railway represented by the General Manager having his office at Trichinopoly for damages for short delivery of goods consigned to him through the railway company on 18th September 1943. The suit was instituted on 23rd March 1944 after the issue of the notice required under Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. On 1st April 1944, the South Indian Railway was taken over by the Govt. of India and by a notification dated 14th October 1944, the General Manager was authorised to act for and on behalf of the Central Government as from 1st April 1944 in all judicial proceedings in which the South Indian Railway Administration might be concer...
Chenna Satyavathi and anr. Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad252; (1952)IMLJ41
ORDER1. The petitioners attack the validity of the proposed acquisition of lands including lands of an extent of 95 cents belonging to them for the purpose of providing house sites for the Adi Andh-ras, of a village in West Godavari District. The only point pressed before us is that provision of house sites for Adi Andhras is not a public purpose within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution, because in effect the result of the acquisition is to transfer property belonging to a certain individual to certain other individuals. We do not agree with this contention. From several provisions of the Constitution, it is clear that making provision for the advancement and development of the Harijan community is one of the avowed objects of the Government, both of the States and of the Union.2. It follows that making provision for housesites for the houseless section of the communitywould be a public purpose within the meaning ofArt. 31 or the Constitution. The application istherefore di...
T.M. Munusamappa and Sons Vs. the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Prope ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Mad789; (1952)1MLJ160
ORDERSubba Rao, J. 1. This is an application for issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from taking forcible possession pursuant to the notice dated 21st June 1951. The petitioners are occupying two out of the three godowns bearing present Municipal door No. 7 in Stringer Street, G. T. Madras. The property was declared to be evacuee property. The peti-tioners were paying rent to the evacuee Haji Mohammad Abbas from 9th December 1943 tilt about 25th January 1951. After the property vested in the respondent under Section 8(4) of the Evacuee Properties Administration Act, 1950, the Deputy Tahsildar took formal possession of the same on 1st February 1951. He took a cheque for a sum of Rs. 150 from the petitioners and allowed them to continue in possession on payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 150. It is not disputed that the petitioners were paying a rent of Rs. 150 per month from 1st February 1951 to the end of June 1951. After some correspondence between the parties, on 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »