Chennai Court February 1956 Judgments
Karunanidhi Naidu Vs. State of Madras (by the Collector of Tanjore)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1956
Reported in: (1956)IILLJ347Mad
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in O.S. No. 43 of 1947.2. The facts are: The appellant entered the Madras Police Service as sub-inspector of police in 1927. He got promoted as circle inspector of police and was working at Nagapattinam in February 1941. The proceedings of the Inspector-General of Police dated 2 May 1944, show that this appellant had shown promise and was responsible for good work and the higher authorities entertained a good opinion of him. But unfortunately, as not un often happens in factious places with wealthy persons around, this appellant seems to have been drawn into the vortex of local factions in the villages of Andanapet and Papakoil in 1941.3. In the villages of Andanapet and Papakoil, which were within the jurisdiction of the circle inspector of Nagapattinam, there were two factions one headed by two persons called Kaliappa Tevar and Govindarajulu Pillai and the other ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. the Additional Income-tax Offic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ304
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1949-50 the amount of refund of income-tax to which the assessee was entitled was ascertained as Rs. 27,892-11-0. About a month later, on 23rd July, I953, the assessee applied to the Income-tax Officer for the issue of a refund order. On 12th August, 1953, the Income-tax Officer informed the assessee that the refundable amount of Rs. 27,892-11-0 had been adjusted towards three items of arrears of income-tax; (1) Rs. 12,835-15-0, arrears due for 1940-41; (2) Rs. 7,800, arrears due for 1,941-42; and (3) Rs. 7,256-12-0, part of the arrears due for 1947-48. The assessee pointed out that the first two items represented the proportionate tax on fordgn income, the income from Kanthoe, for the relevant account periods corresponding to the assessment years 1940-41 and 1941-42, and that as the currency restrictions on remittances from Kanthoe continued, he was entitled to the relief under the Proviso1 to S...
Tag this Judgment!T.M.M. Mudalai Nadar and Co., Virudhunagar Vs. the Commissioner of Inc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad130
Rajagopalan, J.1. For the assessment year 1946-47, the period from 16-8-1944 to 16-8-1945 was the accounting year or the assessee for, income-tax and was also the chargeable accounting period for excess profits tax.The assesses firm traded in arecanut with its head office at Virudhunagar witnin the taxable territories. The assessee obtained imports of arecanut from the Travaacore. State. The arecanut was subjected to excise duty in the year of account both by the Government of India and by the Travancore State, Upto 31-12-1944 the assessee paid sums totalling Rs. 36,094 as excise duty to the Government of India and debited his account with those payments.2. On the representation of the dealers in are-canuts, pointing out the difficulties in paying excise duty both to the Government of India and to the Travancore state, the Government of India is sued certain executive Instructions to its subordinates. On 29-12-1944 the Government directed the Excise authorities not to enforce the syste...
Tag this Judgment!T.M. Madalai Nadar and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Excess ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ320
Rajagopalan, J.1. For the assessment year 1946-47, the period from 16th August, 1944 to 16th August, 1945, was the accounting year of the assessee for income-tax and was also the chargeable accounting period for excess profits tax. The assessee firm traded in arecanut, with its head office at Virudhunagar, within the taxabki territories. The assessee obtained imports of arecanut from the Travancore State. That arecanut was subjected to excise duty in the year of account both by the Government of India and by the Travancore State. Upto 31st December, 1944, the assessee paid sums totalling to Rs. 36,094, as excise duty to the Government of India and debited his account with those payments.2. On the representation of the dealers in arecanuts, pointing out the difficulties in paying excise duty both to the Government of India and to the Travancore State, the Government of India issued certain executive instructions to its subordinates. On 29th December, 1944, the Government directed the Ex...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad463; [1956]29ITR683(Mad)
The Order of the Court was pronounced byRAJAGOPALAN, J. - In the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1949-50 the mount of refund of income-tax to which the assessee was entitled was ascertained as Rs. 27,892-11-0. about a month later, on July 23, 1953, the assessee applied to the Income-tax Officer for the issue of a refund order. On August 12, 1953, the Income tax Officer informed the assessee that the refundable amount of Rs. 27,892-11-0 had been adjusted towards three items of arrears of income-tax : (1) Rs. 12,835-15-0, arrears due for 1940-41; (2) Rs. 7,800 arrears due for 1941-42; and (3) Rs. 7,256-12-0 part of the arrears due for 1947-48. The assessee pointed out that the first two items represented the proportionate tax on foreign income, the income from Kanthoe, for the relevant account periods corresponding to the assessment year 1940-41 and 1941-42, and that as the currency restrictions on remittances from Kanthoe continued, he was entitled to the re...
Tag this Judgment!T. M. M. Madalai Nadar and Co., Virudhunagar Vs. Commissioner of Incom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1956
Reported in: [1956]30ITR191(Mad)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.RAJAGOPALAN, J. - For the assessment year 1946-47, the period from 16th August, 1944, to 16th August, 1945, was the accounting year of the assessee for income-tax and was also the chargeable accounting period for excess profits tax. The assessee firm traded in arecanut, with its heads office at Virudhunagar within the taxable territories. The assessee obtained imports of arecanut from the Travancore State. That arecanut was subjected to excise duty in the year of account both by the Government of India and by the Travancore State. Up to 31st December, 1944, the assessee paid sums totalling Rs. 36,094, as excise duty to the Government of India and debited his account with those payments.On the representation of the dealers in arecanuts, pointing out the difficulties in paying excise duty both to the Government of India issued certain executive instructions to its subordinates. On 29th December, 1944, the Government directed the excise authoriti...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: N. Krishnaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ2
ORDERSomasundram, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the Vth Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, directing the issue of summons to four persons by name Sri Rose, Krishna moorthy, Seetharaman and Rangaswami. In the charge-sheet filed by the police against the accused these witnesses were not mentioned. It is also conceded that these witnesses were not examined by the police till after the charge was framed which was on 19th December 1955. The charge-sheet was filed on 25th November 1955 and after the examination of some witnesses the charge was framed, 19th December, 1955 and it is posted for further cross-examination. These nesses were examined for the first time by the police only on 29th December roll and, at the instance of the prosecution, the Magistrate has directed summons to issue to them to be examined as witnesses for the prosecution. It is doubtful whether after the filing of the final charge-sheet there can be any further investigation into the case by the police. If the...
Tag this Judgment!Louis Dreyfus and Company Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ342
Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiff claimed the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,514-12-6 levied by the State of Madras as purchase tax on the ground that the transaction took place in the then Province of Madras, whereas the plaintiff's case is that no part of it ever took place in Madras. The learned City Civil Judge found that the sales tax was rightly and legitimately levied and, therefore, dismissed the suit.2. According to the plaintiff, the company which is registered in England, with the Indian headquarters at Bombay and a branch in Madras used to enter into contracts with Bombay merchants for the purpose of supplying the company with groundnuts with the object of exporting them to England. The Bombay merchants have their ' own agents in the State of Madras who used to procure the goods and supply the same. The terms of the contract as evidenced by Exhibits A-8 and A-9 show that when the railway receipts are produced in the Bombay office with the invoice, 90 per cent, of the price woul...
Tag this Judgment!Louis Dreyfus and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad762; [1956]7STC720(Mad)
Govinda Menon, J.1. The plaintiff claimed the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,514-12-6 levied by the State of Madras as purchase tax on the ground that the transaction took place in the then Province of Madras, whereas the plaintiff's case is that no part of it ever took place in Madras. The learned City Civil Judge found that the sales tax was rightly and legitimately levied and therefore dismissed the suit.2. According to the plaintiff, the company which is registered in England, with the Indian headquarters at Bombay and a branch in Madras used to enter into contracts with Bombay merchants for the purpose of supplying the company with groundnuts with the object of exporting them to England. The Bombay merchants have their own agents in the State of Madras who used to procure the goods and supply the same.The terms of the contract as evidenced by Exs. A. 8 and A. 9 show that when the railway receipts are produced in the Bombay office with the invoice, 90 per cent of the price would be pai...
Tag this Judgment!Kn. S. Kn. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Kannathal Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ174
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Ramanathan Chettiar, the plaintiff-decree-holder in O.S. No. 51 of 1948, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court Sivaganga, for revising and setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing I.A. No. 334 of 1951 in O.S. No. 51 of 1948. The petition was filed by him under Order 34, Rule 6 and Sections 52(2) and 151, Civil Procedure Code, for passing a personal decree against the legal representatives of the mortgagor. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the hypothecated properties had not been exhausted and that, therefore, there was no reason for passing a personal decree regarding the properties of the original mortgagor in the possession of his legal representatives. The allegation in the petition was that there were non-mortgaged properties of the mortgagor in the hands of the legal representatives, that the balance of Rs. 18,000, or so, due to the petitioner under the mortgage decree, could be easily recovered fr...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »