Chennai Court April 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.
Karur Jai Hind Pictures Represented by Its Partner Periasami Goundar V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad625
ORDERMack J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition was the defendant in a small cause suit No. 2737 of 1953 in the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs. 825-9-9-, the balance of a deposit of Rs. 1,000 under an alleged contract for screening, a picture. The petitioner filed a. suit, O. S. No. 411 of 1952, in the District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli, claiming substantial damages on the same contract. The District Judge, under Section 24, C.P.C., transferred the small cause suit to be tried along with the original suit by the District Munsif, who gave the respondent a decree in the small cause suit, but dismissed the original suit filed by the petitioner.The petitioner has filed A.S. No. 356 of 1954 against that dismissal in the Additional Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, and. in C.M.P. No. 10321 of 1954 asks for a transfer of that appeal to this court to he heard along with C.R.P. No. 1477 of 1954, which he has filed against the decree against him in th...
Subramania Chettiar and ors. Vs. Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad615
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the execution petition is in time. The first execution petition was presented on 18-4-1948 within three years of the passing of the decree. The second one was presented on 7-3-1946 and was signed and verified not by the decree-holder but by one Natesa Pillai describing himself as the power of attorney agent of the decree-holder.It was returned on 11-3-1946 calling upon the petitioner to produce the power of attorney, copy of the final decree, the encumbrance certificate and the sale papers, and two months' time was fixed for complying with the requisitions. 10 months thereafter, the petition was represented on 12-1-1947 beyond the time granted for compliance. Along with the petition, an application for excusing the delay was also presented. The power of attorney required was not produced and an endorsement was made on the execution petition that the power having been cancelled and the petition having bee...
E.V. Balakrishna Ayyar Vs. Mahalakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1955
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ3
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in a suit filed by the respondents against the appellant for recovery of certain properties together with past and future profits. The respondents are the daughters of one Viswanatha Ayyar who died in 1927 leaving behind him his last will and testament, dated 4th October, 1927. He had no male issue, and it is recited in the will that he was treating his natural brother Sitarama Ayyar's third son, the appellant as his foster-son (abhimanaputra). In and by his will, Viswanatha Ayyar inter alia provided that his brother Sitarama Ayyar should as soon as his two daughters who were then minors attain majority give to them one veli of nanja land and one veli of punja land in vattam No. 160 out of the properties possessed by him. The remaining properties were bequeathed to the defendant-appellant.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the two daughters for the recover...
Knightsdale Estates Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras. (Refd. Cas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1955
Reported in: [1955]28ITR650(Mad)
.RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The questions that were referred to this Court under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act in Case Referred No. 46 of 1951 arose out of the proceedings of the assessment year 1943-44, and those referred in Case Referred No. 108 of 1953 arose out of proceedings for the succeeding years 1944-45 to 1950-51. The questions that were referred in Case Referred No. 46 of 1951 were :'(1) Whether there was material on which the Tribunal could have come to the conclusion that the management and control of the firms affairs was not situate wholly outside British India.(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the income from properties situate in Ceylon was assessable under the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922, as that of the Hindu undivided family notwithstanding that succession thereto was in accordance with Ceylon law which does not recognise such a legal entity for purposes of ownership of the estate.'The questions that were referred to this Court in Case Refe...
R. Subramania Iyer Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad623; [1955]28ITR352(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. The question referred to us for decision under Section 66(1) at Income-tax Act is: 'In the absence of any other evidence, is the recital in the partnership deed of 20-4-1947 in? respect of the General Commercial Distributor enough for drawing the inference that the moneys invested by the assessee in the business carried 'on by him, came out of funds belonging to the undivided family consisting of the assessee and his minor son.' The facts giving rise to the reference may be shortly stated. Subramania Iyer, the assessee, quarrelled with his father and came out of the family in or about April 1944. With some money given to him by his father after the separation, and by his mother, he started a concerncalled the General Commercial Corporation in September 1944. The partners in this concern were Subramania Aiyar and one M.S. Ritmamoorthy Aiyar. This was wound up on 31-3-1947 and and a new firm called the General Commercial Distributors came into being on and from...
The Newton Studios Ltd., Madras Vs. the Commr. of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad646; [1955]28ITR378(Mad); (1955)2MLJ514
1. This reference under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act arose out of the proceedings for the assessment year 1947-48 ; the accounting year ended on 3142-1946.2. The assesses was a private limited company owning a studio and engaged in the production of motion pictures. There were six shareholders. Of these Hamanathan Chettiar was the managing director and Banerjee and Tehrani were directors. Baner-jee, Tehrani and Nagoor were employed respectively as Chief Cameraman, Chief Sound Engineer and Art Director in the studio. The managing director and the three technicians were remunerated by payments of what were catted honoraria, which really meant salaries as pointed out by the Appellate Tribunal itself, and also by payments of commission on a fixed percentage basis. In addition each of them got a car allowance, and when the profits justified it, payment of a month's salary as bonus. In 1944 and 1945 what was paid as honoraria, that is, salary, to these four amounted to Rs. 18,000 a y...
South Indian Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., Madras Vs. V. Bapi R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad694
Mack, J.1. This, is a Letters Patent Appeal admitted by a learned Bench of this court against C. M. A. No. 522 of 1952, against an order by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. dismissing an appeal against an order of the learned City Civil Judge Madras, refusing to stay O. S. No. 405 of 1952 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940.2. The facts are shortly these. Appellant and the defendant in the suit is the South India Co-operative Insurance Society. Ltd.. Madras. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent as a nominee of an insurance policy taken but with, this society by his late brother, Mr. Viyyanna, an advocate, who died on 10-4-1949. The policy was a double endowment policy No. 2190 dated 9-4-1935, under which a sum of Rs. 1,000 was payable if the assured died within a period of 15 years from the date of the policy. An enhanced sum of Rs. 2,000 would become payable if he survived this period.The policy matured on 8-4-1950 and the last premium was payable on 9-1-1950. The Soc...
Sivaramakrishnan Vs. Kaveri Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad705; (1956)IMLJ152
1. These two appeals arise out of the decree or the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram in O. S. No. 52 of 1948. The plaintiff is the appellant in App. No. 217 of 1950 while the other appeal is by the contesting defendant in that suit.2. O. S. No. 52 of 1948 is a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff who is the undivided son of the first defendant, the second defendant being his mother. Defendants 3 and 4 are the sister and sister's son respectively of the plaintiff in whose favour defendants 1 and 2 have executed a settlement deed whose validity is challenged by the plaintiff in the action. Defendants 5 to 7 are the lessees in possession of the suit properties but they might he left out of account. The plaint contains two schedules A and B claimed to belong to the family, schedule A comprising the immovable properties and schedule B comprising the movable properties.The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the movable properties had not existed and that they might therefore be left o...
Ananthalakshmi Ammal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad664; [1955]28ITR178(Mad); (1955)2MLJ337
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assessee, Srimati Ananthalakshmi Animal, is the wife of S. S. Ramudu Aiyar. He was a partner of Sri Kodandarama Spinning Mills, Madurai with a substantial income of his own. In the assessment year 1943-44, the assessee submitted a return which showed an income of Rs. 40,387 in the accounting year ending with 13-4-1943, which, she declared, constituted her profit that year from the trade she had carried on in cotton. She claimed that she had carried on that business with the help of her brother Nageswara Aiyar as her clerk and power-of-attorney agent. He was also an employee of Sri Kodandarama Spinning Mills. The Income-tax Officer held on the facts placed before him that the business and the income belonged to Ramudu Aiyar and included it in his taxable income. The Appellate Tribunal, to which Ramudu Aiyar ultimately appealed, held, on 3-11-1945 that the business and the income belonged only to Ramudu Aiyar's wife. The Income-tax Officer thereupon initiated procee...
Popular Ltd., Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Mad669; [1955]28ITR309(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. This reference under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act raised two questions:'1. Whether the provision imposing income-tax on capital gains, made by the Indian Income-tax and Excess Profits Tax (Amendment) Act, 1947, (No. 22 of 1947) is, ultra vires? 2. Whether in computing the capital gain assessable to tax under Section 12-B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the initial depreciation allowed to the assessee 'under Section 10 (2) (vi) is also to be deducted from the cost to the assessee of the assets in arriving at the written down value? 2. The decision of the Supreme Court in Navinchandra Mafutial v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, (S) : [1954]26ITR758(SC) , (A) concludes the first question. We answer the first question in the negative and against the assessee.3. The assessee firm conducted the business of a public transport (bus) service in Tirunelveli district during the year of account, April 1946 to March 1947. It discontinued that business sifter 30th S...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »