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.
Kelath ValIn Chiyan Kunhambu Vs. Kirathua Illoth Yagnan Nambudiri and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ297
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This appeal against the judgment of Subba Rao, J., in S.A. No. 502 of 1948 arises out of a suit brought by the respondents for the redemption of a kanom, dated 19th May, 1932, executed by two brothers, Raman Nair and Sankaran Nair, in favour of the defendant-appellant. The kanom comprised two items, of which we are not concerned with item I in this appeal, as it does not cover that item. There was a lease back to the kanomdars on a rental of Rs. 41-7-0. For arrears of rent due on the lease, a suit was filed, O.S. No. 671 of 1936, and in execution of the decree obtained therein, the properties were purchased by the defendant, who also obtained possession in pursuance of the purchase. The sale was on 22nd November, 1937. In 1938, there was an application under Section 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to set aside a sale, and eventually the sale was set aside. Possession, however, continued with the defendant. On 17th November, 1943, Sankaran Nair who became entitled to...
M. S. Subbulakshmi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad529; [1955]28ITR561(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - In this reference under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions for our decision :1. Whether the trust deed dated 9th May, 1946, is covered by the provisions of section 16 (1) (c) of the Act and the income received from Messrs. Narayanan & Co. was not includible in that of the assessee ?2. Whether the document dated 9th May, 1946, in respect of the royalties from the Gramophone Co., Ltd., is covered by the provisions of section 16 (1) (c) and the income received therefrom was not includible in that of the assessee ?The questions however as drawn up do not bring out the actual controversy between the assessee and the department as will be seen from our discussion of the points involved in assessment.The assessee, Srimathi M. S. Subbulakshmi, is a musician and cinema actress in South India. This reference is concerned with the assessment of this assessee for four years from assessment ye...
T. Manavedan Tirumalpad and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR615(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - One of the sources of income of the assessee, an undivided Hindu family which the Rajah of Nilambur represented in the relevant assessment years, was the kuttikanam, which was virtually the sale price of timber from the private forests of the assessee. We are concerned in these proceedings only with that portion of the income which the assessee obtained from his forests that stood on the lands on which he paid land revenue to the Government. It should be convenient to refer to that income in the rest of this judgment as 'forest income'.Down to and inclusive of the assessment year 1940-41 both the assessee and the department treated this forest income as agricultural income within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Income-tax Act, exempt from income-tax. In the assessment year 1941-42 also the forest income was not taxed. The circumstances under which the income under this head was left untaxed that year were explained by the Income-tax Officer in his assessment order ...
A. R. Rangachari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR528(Mad)
.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - This is a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the question referred to this Court for its decision is :'Whether the inclusion in the assessees total income of the profits settled by him on his wife and two daughters is justified in law ?'The facts giving rise to this reference are briefly these. The question raised arises out of the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948-49 of the income of the assessee, A. R. Rangachari, from the profits of the firm of Messrs. Chari and Ram, in which the assessee was one of five partners. Under a deed of partnership, dated 22nd April, 1946, entered into among the partners of this firm, the assessee, A. R. Rangachari, was entitled to a 6 annas share in the partnership, the four other partners being entitled to the other 10 annas. While so, Rangachari executed on 22nd September, 1947, 3 deeds of settlement, which have been appended to the statement of the case and marked as...
Shah Mohamed Khan Vs. H.N. Woodfall
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad637; (1955)2MLJ333
1. These revision petitions were first heard by Somasundaraip J., who directed them to be posted before a Division Bench, because of the conflict of decisions on the only Question which arises in these petitions, namely, whether an application for leave to defend a suit under Order 37, Civil P. C. can be entertained after a period of ten days from the date of service of the summons.2. The question appears to us to admit only of one answer. Before dealing with the decisions on the question, the material statutory provisions may he first noticed. Under Order 37, Rule 3, Civil P. C,, the Court shall, upon application by the defendant give leave to appear and defend the suit, after the defendant satisfies the, Court by facts disclosed in affidavits that there is prima facie defence. Order 37, Rule 2(2) of the Code provides that in any case in which the defendant has not obtained such leave, the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and that the plaintiff shall be entitle...
Williams Tacks and Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. the State of Madras, Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad656; (1955)2MLJ254
1. The question for determination in these proceedings in revision is whether the articles specified in lists 1(a), 1(b) and 1 (c) were electrical goods within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (viii), General Sales-tax Act. On the goods specified in Section 3 (2) (viii) an additional tax of three pies in the rupee can be imposed. The Tribunal was unanimous in its findings that item 9 of list 1 (a), the electrical pump sets enumerated in list 1 (b) and all the items in list 1 (c) other than item 2 were electrical goods. Item 2 in list 1 (c) should really have been included in list 1 (a); item 4 of list 1 (a) was 26 inches circular saw benches, and item 2 of list 1 (c) was a machine of the same type but of 20 inches variety. With reference to items other than item 9 of list 1 (a) and item 2 of list 1 (c) the learned Chairman of the Tribunal was of the view that they were not electrical goods. The view of the majority of the Tribunal which prevailed was that the component electrical motors of...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. R. Narayanaswami Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ481
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Madras against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai in C.C. No. 662 of 1954.2. The facts are: In Tindivanam Road in Tiruvannamalai there is a hotel by name ' Modern Cafe '. The proprietor of this hotel is Narayanaswami Reddiar and the head-cook who is in charge of the supply of meals at the hotel is C.S. Harihara Ayyar. On 30th November, 1953, the Sanitary Inspector of Tiruvannamalai, Sri N. Ramachandra Rao, took samples of ghee prepared for sale along with the meals and sent the same to the analyst. The Government Analyst has found that there was an admixture of adulterated fat of 78 percent. Therefore, a prosecution was launched against the proprietor and the head-cook who pleaded guilty was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 and the proprietor who pleaded 'not guilty' was acquitted on the ground that he was not present at the hotel that day. This appeal has been filed on...
Hajee Abdul Shukoor and Co. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad686
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.2. The question of law which has been referred to the Full Bench is 'Whether a licensed tanner who purchases un-tanned hides and skins from an unlicensed dealer is liable to he taxed en his turnover under Rule 16(2) Or under any other provisions of the Madras General Sales-tax Act and the rules framed thereunder?'The circumstances leading to this reference have been set out in the order of reference and need not be repeated.3. It will be convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Madras General Sales-tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder and examine the question in the light of these provisions before dealing with the observations in the two decisions adverted to in the order of reference.4. Section 3 of the Act is what might be termed the principal charging provision. The relevant portion of this section is in these terms :'3(1). Subject to the provisions of this Act, (a) every dealer shall pay for each year a tax on his total turnover for such year...
In Re: Sambandam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad167; (1954)IMLJ497
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioners, nine in number were called upon by the Joint Magistrate of Negapattinam to show cause why they should not be directed to furnish security under Section 107, Cr P.C. for keeping the peace for a period of six months.2. In response to the notice issued to them, the petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate and submitted that one of the instances which had been referred to in the preliminary order under Section 112, Cr. P.C. formed the subject-matter of P.R. C. No. 3 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Negapattinam and prayed for an adjournment of the security case till the disposal of P.R.C. No. 3 of 1955. This request for an adjournment was refused.Thereupon, the first petitioner filed an application under Section 526(8), Criminal P.C. intimating the learned Magistrate that he intended to mover this Court for the transfer of the case from his file and asking for an adjournment on that ground. Accordingly the Joint Magistrate...
In Re: G.S. Pasha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Mad334; 1956CriLJ753; (1956)IMLJ151
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. These are three revisions filed by accused 1 to 3 in C. C. No. 8888 of 1953 on the file of the court of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate. They were tried on three charges. The first charge is that the three accused on or about the 22nd day of Hay 1951 in furtherance of the common intention fraudulently & dishonestly used as genuine a certain document, to wit, a cash receipt dated 22-5-1951 for Rs. 700 purporting to be issued by V.R. Krishna and Co., 12 Wallers Road, Madras, which the three accused know or had reason to believe at the time they used it to be a forged document and thereby committed an offence under Section 471, read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. The second charge is that the three accused on the same date in furtherance of the common intention of all of them dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 700 belonging to the Madras Co-operative Motor Transport Society and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 403 read with Section 34, I.P.C. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »