Chennai Court March 1952 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.
Rangaswami Goundar Vs. Marappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad230; (1952)2MLJ497
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He is the son of one Ramayya Goundan who died sometime in 1931. The family of Ramayya Goundan consisted, at that time, of his two wives, Ponnammal and Ramayee, two daughters by his first wife, Ponnammal, the elder of whom, Marayee, was married to Marappa Goundan the second defendant in the suit and the younger Karupayee was unmarried and the appellant who was his son by the second wife, Ramayee and at that time a minor aged about ten years. The properties which Ramayya Goundan owned were a land known as Kandan Kadu in which he owned 3 acres & 81 1/2 cents & a land called That tan Kadu in which he owned 2 acres and 82 cents subject to a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 450 of which half was payable by him, and a house. Shortly after his death, disputes arose between the two widows and it is stated that they were settled by a panchayat.On 10-12-1932, three documents came into existence and it is the validity of on...
M. Subbiah Nadar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1952
Reported in: [1953]23ITR58(Mad)
SATYANARAYANA RAO, J. - The three questions that were referred to us for decision under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are :- (1) Whether the payment of Rs. 23,894, cost of railway siding, paid by the assessee to the M.L.M. Estate was revenue expenditure which the assessee was entitled to deduct under Section 10(2) of the Act.(2) Whether the sum of Rs. 7,000 spent in connection with the new salt pans was capital expenditure and not allowable as a deduction under Section 10(2) of the Act.(3) Whether the sum of Rs. 36,680 paid to Messrs. A. R. Ramier & Co., under the compromise decree was an admissible expenditure under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act.The three questions may be considered under two groups as questions Nos. (1) and (2) are closely connected and raise the same questions of law. The third question will be dealt with separately.The facts relevant for consideration of the first two questions are as follows as appear from the state...
The Associated Industrial Engineers by their Managing Partner, P.V. Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad197; [1952]22CompCas217(Mad); (1952)2MLJ378
1. These two appeals are against an order of Krishnaswami Nayudu J. passed on an application in the course of liquidation of a limited company called the South Indian Industrial Engineering Syndicate Ltd., Gudiyatham. The company was registered on 12th March 1946, with a nominal capital of 30 lakhs divided into three lakhs of ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each out of which there was an issue of fifty thousand shares. In and by an agreement dated 10th April 1946 a firm known by the name of Messrs. Associate Industrial Engineers was appointed as Managing agents of the company for a period of twenty years on terms and conditions set out therein. The company obtained a certificate for the commencement of the business on 30th July. Very soon thereafter misunderstandings arose between P.V. Padmanabha Naidu, the Managing partner of the Associate Industrial Engineers, and some of the directors of the company of whom the most prominent was one P. A. Jabbar Sahib. He filed two criminal complaints ag...
Gosukonda Venkatanarasayya and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad60; (1952)IIMLJ194
1. The petitioners' case is that the grant in their favour comprised less than a village and therefore it is not an estate still less an under-tenure estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. If the grant is less than a village then obviously Madras Act XXVI of 1948 can have no application whatever. Section 9 of that Act provides for the determination after inquiry of the question whether any inam village is an inam estate or not. Presumably, when the contention is that the grant does not comprise a village, the proceedings under Section 9 would not be strictly open to the aggrieved party. There is no other provision in the Act under which a special Tribunal has been set up to decide a dispute of the nature which arises in this case, viz, whether a particular grant comprises less than a village. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the aggrieved party will have a right of suit as he would have a good cause of action when proceedings are taken under colour of an Act w...
Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. Sivakolandu Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad234; (1952)1MLJ770
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant and he sued for possession of the suit properties on the ground of his purchase in a revenue court auction held in execution of decree in summary suits filed by the land-holder for recovery of arrears of rent. There are three items of property involved: (1) R.S. No. 315/1 measuring 33 cents dry land, (2) R.S. No. 286/1 measuring 26 cents nanja and (3) R.S. No. 286/12 measuring 42 cents dry land. Under Ex. P. 3, dated 7th August 1945, in execution of summary suit No. 52 of 1933, the plaintiff was granted a sale certificate in respect of item No. 1, and Ex. P. 2 is the sale certificate dated 27th January 1945 granted as purchaser in the sale held in pursuance of the rent decrees in S.S. No. 136 of 1933 in respect of items 2 and 3. The claim to possession is on the basis that the purchaser at an auction in a rent sale is entitled to permanent title and he holds it free from the encumbrances. The defendant claimed to purchase th...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Ratanshi Bhavanji, Adoni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad358; [1952]22ITR82(Mad); (1952)2MLJ855
1. An interesting question has been referred to us for decision under Section 66(1), Income-tax Act, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The question for decision is:"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the taxed share income of Rs. 22,440 from the unregistered firm of Messrs. Dharmashi Bros., could be set off against the loss of Rs. 52,569 sustained by the respondent Hindu undivided family in speculation business for the purpose of determining the loss to be carried forward under Section 24(2)."The assessee is the kartha of a Hindu undivided family. The kartha was also a partner in an unregistered firm known as Messrs. Dharmashi Brothers. During the assessment year, the assessee received as his share of the profit of the unregistered firm a sum of Rs. 22,440 on which tax was collected from the unregistered firm. His account of the total income of the loss as compiled by the Income-tax Officer is as follows:______________________________________________________...
Keshavalal and Co., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad521
Satyanarayana Rao, J.1. Two interesting questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. They are:1. 'Whether the Excess Profits Tax Officer was not justified in law in adopting the procedure laid down in the third proviso to Rule 1 of Schedule 1 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, when the chargeable accounting period and the accounting period were not coterminous.2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the writing off Rs. 16881 bad debts before 31-3-46 while the accounting period closed on 24th October 1946 was a special circumstance to be taken into account in determining the profits of the chargeable accounting period ending 31st March 1946.'2. The assessee is a firm and carries on business in yarn and money-lending. The assessment year for the purpose of incometax is 1947-48 and the accounting year is Samvat year corresponding to 4th November 1945 to 24th October 1943. For the purpose of exces...
Keshavalal and Co., in Re.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1952
Reported in: [1953]24ITR585(Mad)
SATYANARAYAN RAO, J.-Two interesting questions have been referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 66 (I) of the Indian Income-tax Act. They are :-(1) Whether the Excess Profits Tax Officer was not justified in law in adopting the procedure laid down in the third proviso to Rule I of Schedule I of the Excess Profits Tax Act, when the chargeable accounting period were not conterminous.(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the writing off Rs. 16,681 bad debts before 31st March, 1946, while the accounting period closed on 24th October, 1946, was a special circumstances to be taken into account in determining the profits to the chargeable accounting period ending 31st March, 1946.The assessee is a firm and carries on business in yarn and money-lending. The assessment year for the purpose of income-tax is 1947-48 and the accounting year is Samvat year corresponding to 4th November, 1945, to 24th October, 1946. For the purpose of excess profits...
Muhammad Alikhan Sahib Vs. S.K. Venkataramanayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1954Mad132; (1952)IIMLJ455
Subba Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of O. S. No. 446 Of 1947 on the file of the District Munsif of Gobicbettipalayam, a suit filed by the first respondent for a declaration of his title and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The facts found or admitted may briefly be stated: The plaint schedule property is the northern portion of S. No. 152-B. This is on a higher level than the rest of the survey field. It has never been under cultivation. In the year 1899 under Ex. A.I, the entire item fell to the share of one Peerkhan Sahib in a partition that was effected between him, hie brothers and father. Under Ex. A. 2 dated 9-12-1918 Peerkhan Sahib usufructuarily mortgaged the same to the plaintiff. On 4-3-1918 he executed a simple mortgage Ex. A. 3 of the same property in favour of one Aminabi. Ex. A. 4 dated 1-8-1924 is another registered usufructuary mortgage deed executed by Peerkhan Sahib is favour of the plaintiff. In non...
Management of Rajamani Transport Ltd. Vs. Workers Employed in the Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Mad342; (1952)IIMLJ200
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of providing bus transport in Madura, Ramnad, Tiruchirapalli and Tanjore districts. By G. O. Ms. No. 4096 (Development) dated 9-10-1950 the Government referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication the dispute between the workers and the management of the petitioner company. The items of dispute comprised scales of wages, dearness allowance, etc. The Industrial Tribunal at Mathurai fixed basic wages for the different categories of workers like drivers, conductors, checking inspectors, etc., on the basis of wages which were obtaining in other transport companies. There was an appeal by the petitioner to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. That Tribunal confirmed the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The above application is to quash the orders of the two Tribunals. 2. The contention of the petitioner company is that the award of the Industrial Tribun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »