Chennai Court October 1956 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.
The Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Co., Ltd., by Its Secretary Mr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ167
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These are petitions for the issue of writs of prohibition directed against the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Non-resident Special Circle, Madras requiring him not to take further proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by him to the respective petitioners. The point raised by the writ petitions at the stage of the final argument was as regards the constitutional validity of the Sales Tax Law validation Act, 1956(Central Act VII of 1956) which we shall refer to as the impugned Act).2. Before discussing the legal points raised, it would be useful to set out the main facts of the three cases which are nearly identical.3. The petitioner in W.P. No. 37 of 1955 is the Mysore Spinning and Manufacturing Company, Bangalore. This company which manufactures textile goods in Bangalore City was effecting sales in the State of Madras and the goods were delivered in Madras in pursuance of such sales. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer issued a notice to the petiti...
Transport Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR259(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee company, which engaged itself mainly in the business of motor transport, owned several buses and lorries. In 1942 it entered into a contract with another transport concerns, the Tirunelveli motor bus Service company Limited, Tirunelveli, under which fourteen of the assessees buses with their route right were transferred to the latter company. The Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service Company Limited would not implement the bargain. Litigation ensued. The assessee filled first O.S. No. 35 of 1945 on 20th April, 1945. That suit was eventually dismissed. That was fallowed up with the institution of O.S. No. 80 of 1946 on 1st November, 1946. Against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on O.S. No. 80 of 1946, the assessee preferred A.S. No. 306 of 1949 to this Court. The judgment in that appeal has been reported in Transport Company v. Tirunelveli Motor bus Company.The accounting year of the assessee was the calendar year. In 1946 the assessee spent sums tot...
M. Ponnambalam Vs. Saraswathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad693; 1957CriLJ1282
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a revision petition which has been preferred against an order made by the learned Second Presidency Magistrate, G. T. Madras, to M. C. No. 1 of 1956. 2. The facts are: The petitioner in the lower court Saraswathi had been married by the respondent, Ponnambalam, in 1953. This Ponnambalam is a postman drawing a salary of Rs. 90 per month. Husband and wife lived happily for some time after the marriage. But as it often happens in Hindu households, the presence of the step mother of the husband had been a disturbing factor in this household and husband and wife have fallen out and the wife says that she had had to go and live with her parents and on account of the fact that this Ponnambalam has not made any provision for her maintenance and has refusing and neglecting to maintain her, this Saraswathi has filed this petition under Section 488 Crl. P. C. On the appearance of the parties in the court, apparently they have not desired to go into the box and give ev...
P.M. Muthuraman Chettiar and anr. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad259; [1957]31ITR61(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.Case Refd. No. 68 of 1953 :--1. The question referred to this court for determination under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act is whether the loss of Rs. 23672 Incurred by the assessee as a partner of the three firms outside India could be set off against the assessee's income from business in India having regard to the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act on this behalf?.2. The assessee is an undivided Hindu family consisting of a father and his minor son. The managing member of this family was carrying on business as money lender and a dealer in shares in British India. He was also a partner in three non-resident firms carrying on business at Penang, Kauntan and Raub.3. Having regard to the residence of the manager in the year of assessment, with which this reference is concerned, namely, 1946-47, the assessee (undivided Hindu family) was treated as resident and ordinarily resident.4. In the course of the assessment proceedings of this assessee it c...
V. Dhanmull Sowcar Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority at Vell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad387
1. The petitioner held a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot Dt. for his motor bus MDJ 134. On a report by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, that on 12-10-1954 the bus was overloaded by 39 persons, the Regional Transport Officer, who was also the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, North Arcot Dt. issued a notice to the petitioner, held an enquiry and eventually directed the suspension of the petitioner's permit for three months. That was confirmed on appeal by the Central Road Traffic Board. The petitioner moved the Government to revise the orders under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as it stood then. On 28-12-1955 the Government reduced the period of suspension to two months.2. The petitioner applied under Article 228 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings and the orders of all the three authorities mentioned above. The main contention of the petitioner was that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to suspend th...
S.N.R. Sundara Rao and Sons, Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad451
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The questions referred to this Court for determination under Section 66 (1). Income-tax Act are:1. Whether the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act have validly been initiated and completed for the four assessment years in question?2. Whether the trust deeds are voidable or void and whether the assessee can be assessed in regard to the properties under Section 9 of the Income-tax Act and for any period before the date of the Judgment in the O. S. No. 105 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai?,2. The question raised by this reference is whether a Hindu undivided family, which is the assessee was the owner of certain house property, so as to render it liable to be assessed on the income thereof under Section 9, Income-tax Act, A subsidiary question that is raised is as regards the propriety or the legality of the reopening of the assessment under Section 34 of the Act. The Hindu undivided family which is the assessee owned considerable propert...
N.M.N. Duraiswami Chettiar Vs. the Dindigul Urban Co-operative Bank Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad745
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in A. S. Nos. 70 and 71 of 1954 reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Dindigul in O. S. No. 50 of 1954.2. The facts are: The plaintiff is the Dindigul Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., through principal officer and secretary, Sri Nagalswami. The first defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 2000, on 19-12-1952 Wider the savings bank account with the said bank end a pass book had been issued to the first defendant. As per rules, whenever withdrawals are made, the pass book should be produced before the Bank for necessary entries. The first defendant wanted to withdraw the entire amount with interest without surrendering the savings bank account pass boot.In the. meantime, the minor second defendant, who is the brother of the first defendant, issued a notice to the plaintiff informing the bank that there had been a partition in the family and that the am...
In Re: A.K.D. Rangaswami Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad582
ORDER1. S. R. NOS. 32993 and 32996:-- These relate to two memorandum of civil revision petitions purporting to be under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of a learned Judge of this court on two interlocutory applications on the original side of this court in two suits now pending on the original side of this court having been transferred from the District Court of Ram-nad.In Sahaba Reddy v. Venkata Reddi , to which one of us was a party, it was decided that Article 227 of the Constitution is confined to subordinate courts and a Judge of the High Court as such Is not subordinate to the High Court and a civil revision petition is not competent against an order of a learned Judge of this court under that article. This view has been followed by other division Benches of this court. The papers in these two S. R. Numbers must be returned to the party as the revision petitions sought to be preferred are not competent.2. S. R Nos. 32089 and 32991 of 1956: These relate to two or...
P.K. Mannan Ezhuthachen Vs. V.K. Madhavan Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad763
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a Revision directed against the order made by the learned District Munsif of Alatur in O. S. No. 402 of 1938. 2. The facts are: In this suit a Receiver had been appointed for the management of the Puzhakkal Edom estate and the present Receiver is Sri V. K. Madhavan Nair. This Receiver under orders of Court held an auction sale of the right to cut and remove trees standing in 1200 acres of Edom forest. The confirmation of the sale was to be by the district Munsif of Alatur. 3. A sale was held after due publicity and obtaining the Government's permission, by the Receiver in the Court compound on 28-3-1958. Seven persons took part in the auction. There was obviously a ring. The highest bidder was one Mannao Ezhuthachim of Chittalancherry. The final bid offered by him was for Rs. 16,041. Subject to confirmation by Court, the Receiver received from the bidder 1/4th of the bid amount. He reported the matter to the Court for confirmation as the balance had to be r...
Mysore City Hotels Association and ors. Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad223; (1957)ILLJ282Mad
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. On 15th December 1949 the Secretary of the Mysore City Hotel Workers' Association preferred a demand on behalf of the workers in 61 hotels in the City, that the employers should pay their workmen four months wages as bonus. An attempt at conciliation failed. On 8thDecember 1951 the Government of Mysore referred the question as an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. It should be noticed there were other itemsof dispute also, but I am concerned at this stage only with the claim for bonus as an industrial dispute. It should also be noticed at this stage that both before the Industrial Tribunal and be-fore the appellate Tribunal the claim was treated as one for bonus for the years 1947-48, that is, for the period of 12 months ending with 30th June 1948.2. The Industrial Tribunal by its award dated 32-10-1953 negatived the claim for bonus, principally on the ground that it wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »