Chennai Court March 1955 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.
Omar Salay Mohammed Sait Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad624; [1955]28ITR77(Mad)
Rajamannar C.J. 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, against the order in C. M. P. No. 10650 of 1953 'which was an application untied Section 66(2), Income-tax Act, for a direction to the Income-lax Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law to this Court. It was held by a Special Bench of the Patna High Court in --'Harihar Gir v. Commissioner of Income-tax, B. & O.', AIR 1941 Pat 225 (A), that no appeal lay to His Majesty in Council from an order of a High Court dismissing an application under Section 66 (3), Income-tax Act then in force which corresponds to Section 66(2) of the present Income-tax Act to direct, the Commissioner of Income-tax to state a case.That decision has been expressly approved by the Supreme Court in -- Premchand Satramdas v. State of Bihar', : [1951]19ITR108(SC) (B). Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Full Bench ruling of the Lahore High Court in --'Feroze Shah v. Commissioner of Income-tax', AIR .1931 ...
M.K. Ranganathan and anr. Vs. the Calcutta Tramways Co., Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad285; (1956)1MLJ335
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., allowing an application made by the first respondent, namely, the Calcutta Tramways Company, Ltd., in the following circumstances: The Madras Electric Tramways, Ltd., was a company carrying on the business of running tramways in the city of Madras. Towards the end of 1952, the company urgently needed certain traction motors for its tramcars, and they were unable to immediately import them from abroad. So they approached the Calcutta Tramways Co., Ltd., to help them in their difficulty by supplying them on loan the required motors. The Calcutta company agreed to send on loan to the Madras company 36 English Electric Tramways traction-motors from their stock after overhauling them, the cost of reconditioning them and delivery to Madras to be met by the Madras Company. The said motors had been imported by the Calcutta company under a ' No-sale licence ', on the terms of which they were precluded from selling any of these mot...
K. Govindan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR307(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The question referred to this court under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act ran :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the inference of the Tribunal that the transaction in shares was a separate business is justified in law.'The assessee carried on trade as a commission agent at Madras. Among the several trading activities of his, both in the relevant accounting year and the preceding years, was the purchase and sale of shares, which the Tribunal rightly characterised as a speculative business. He was not a share broker. For the accounting year preceding the assessment year 1947-48, his profits from his transactions in shares was computed at Rs. 13,272. He had sustained losses in the years preceding the relevant accounting year. After adjusting the losses sustained towards the profits computed for assessment in the assessment year 1947-48, there was still a balance of Rs. 8,321. The contention of the petitioner was that this sum of Rs. 8,321 sh...
V. Mahadeva Gurukkal Vs. the Commissioner for the Board of Hindu Relig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad522; (1956)1MLJ309
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. O.S.A. No. 47 of 1949 had been filed against the judgment and decree of our learned brother, Panchapagesa Sastri, J., dated 22nd April, 1949, in O.P. No. 117 of 1948, dismissing that O.P. which had been filed by one Mahadeva Gurukkal, for setting aside an order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, holding Sri Vallabha Vinayagar Temple, situated in No. 176, Anna Pillai Street, G.T., Madras, as a ' temple ' under Section 9(12) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Panchapagesa Sastri, J., had dismissed that O.P. and held the temple in question to be a public temple under Section 9(12) of the Act for various reasons. The main ones were seven: firstly, there was no evidence to prove the contention of Mahadeva Gurukkal that the temple was founded by his ancestors; secondly, the evidence let in by the respondents showed conclusively that the Hindu public of that locality (the Kotwal Chavadi area) were worshipping in the temple as of right, without taking any per...
Board of Revenue, Chepauk, Madras Vs. K. Venkataswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad620; 1955CriLJ1369
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question referred to us by the Board of Revenue for our opinion is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lease of properties relating to a touring cinema, though collapsible and capable of being removed, but permanently fastened to the earth when in use is chargeable to Stamp duty under Article 30(a)(1) of Schedule-I-A of the Stamp Act, II of 1899.2. The answer to the question depends upon whether the equipment of the touring cinema would fall within the category of immoveable 'property. We have no hesitation in holding that it does not. In the question referred to us, the properties aredescribed as collapsible and capable of being removed. In the very nature of things, properties of that nature cannot be immoveable property. The expression 'permanently fastened' occurring in the question is a little misleading.Actually some of the machinery or the poles of the tent may be imbedded in the earth, but they are imbedded only temporarily and ...
Board of Revenue and anr. Vs. V.M. Murugesa Mudaliar of Gudiyatham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad641
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The question referred to us by the Board of Revenue under Section 57, Stamp Act, is whether the document styled a deed of release executed on '23-5-1949 is liable to be charged with stamp duty under Articles 39(b), 44(b) and 19 of Sch. I-A of the Stamp Act respectively. 2. The referring Authority was of the opinion that the document in question came under all the three Articles and therefor liable to be charged with stamp duty under each of these three Articles. Article 39(b) of the Schedule I-A of the Act deals with an instrument of dissolution of partnership. Article 44(b) is an article applicable to an instrument of release whereby, a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property. Article 19 applies to a conveyance. 3. The executants of the deed are three persons, who along with two persons in whose favour the deed was executed, where partners of a registered firm known as 'Gudiyatham Lungi Company'. The executants appear to have c...
In the Matter of Validation of a Document Dated 14-6-1947 Executed by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad652
Rajamannar, C.J.1. The questions referred to us under Section 57, Stamp Act by the Board of Revenue in this case are :1. Whether the document in question is a promissory note or a bond within the meaning of Section 2 (5) (b), Stamp Act ? 2. If the document is a bond, it not having been produced within one year from the date of its execution as required by Section 41, Stamp Act, whether the Collector has jurisdiction to proceed under Ss. 41 and 42, Stamp Act and issue a certificate. 2. The document in question dated 14-6-1947 runs as follows ;'Promissory note executed on 14-6-1947 in favour of Arunachala Chettiar, son of Kolakkara Chettiar, residing at Palappudi Village, hamlet of Sathyamangammal, Gingi taluk by Kuppuswami Chettiar, son of Venkatachala Chettiar, residing at the aforesaid village. In respect of the sum received from you at Tiruvannamalai by me in the year 1943 and given for opening a javuli shop by T. Arunachala Iyer the sum found due to you is Rs. 3000. As this sum of r...
S.T. Shanmugesan Vs. K. Chengalvaraya Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad611; 1955CriLJ1365
ORDERKrishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. Application No. 4499 of 1954 as amended by order in application No. 770 of 1955, is for sanction to prosecute by directing that a complaint be filed against (a) K. Chengalvaraya Mudaliar, the first respondent, under Section 209, Penal Code, and (b) K. Bahi Mudaliar, M. Natesa Mudaliar and S. Velu Mudaliar, respondents 2 to 4 under Section 195, Penal Code and also under Section 209, Penal Code coupled with Section 109, Penal Code.2. The first respondent filed application No. 2583 of 1951 on the Original Side of the High Court for a declaration that the dissolution of the Thirumagal Corporation Ltd., was void and for consequential proceedings to be taken as if the company had not been dissolved, for the realisation of the moneys due to the first respondent.The case of the first respondent was that the Thirumagal Corporation was a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act on 6-9-1946 with a share capital of Rs. 2,00,000, divided int...
In Re: Manikka Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ51
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision case against the order of the District Magistrate, Judicial, Chingleput, confirming the conviction under Section 4(1)(a) of the Madras Prohibition Act and the sentence of 6 weeks' rigorous imprisonment passed on the petitioner by the Sub-Magistrate, Maduranthakam.2. The case for the prosecution was this. On 31st August, 1954, at 5-30 p.M., the Sub-Inspector of Prohibition, Maduranthakam, searched the house of the petitioner and seized a hand bag containing three bottles of arrack. A search list, Exhibit P-1, was prepared by two witnesses, one of whom was P.W. 2, the karnam of the village. The Sub-Inspector had also taken statements both from the petitioner and P.W. 2. P.W. 2, in his statement Exhibit P-3, stated that he was present at the search and that he had attested Exhibit P-1. In the trial Court, he had completely gone back on the statement made to the Sub-Inspector and said that the petitioner was not present when the Prohibition Office...
Sorualingam Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad685; 1955CriLJ1602
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was charged by the Assistant Inspector of Labour, Karaikudi, before the Sub Magistrate of Karaikudi with having contravened certain provisions of the Madras Shops and Establish, merits Act. The complainant also filed an application for the issue of summons to the accused for the production of certain documents in his custody. That application was granted by the Sub-Magistrate. The Accused then came to this Court in revision and a Bench of this Court, following the. decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Sharnla v. Satish Chandra, : 1978(2)ELT287(SC) (A), set aside the order of the Magistrate. They took the view that to require all accused person to produce a document in his custody by issuing a summons to him would amount to testimonial compulsion and therefore be repugnant to Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application on 1-11-1954 for the issue oi a search warrant and on that the Sub-Magistrate issue...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »