Chennai Court February 1956 Judgments
In Re: James Noel Anthony Hobbs and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad613
1. It appears that on 4lh March 1956 one George Pelham White executed a will where-under he appointed James Noel Anthony Hobbs, Captain J. A. A. Breithaupt and Lionel Aldred as his executors. Paragraph 1 of the document contains this restrictive provision:"all dusts and powers hereinafter reposed in my executors shall be exercised by them jointly or may be exercised by the survivors or survivor of " them ..... On no account should the number of trustees acting at any time exceed three and the trustees shall act jointly."This is a petition for probate which has been taken out by James Noel Anthony Hobbs and Captain J. A. A. Breithaupt. The office enquired how since the will requires all the three executors to act jointly a petition by two of them alone would lie. The petition was represented with the endorsement,"though in the will it is stated that all trusts and powers should be exercised by the executors jointly Section 224 provides that where several executors are appointed probate ...
Tag this Judgment!S.M. Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ23
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. I agree with the Office Note. Where a petitioner desires to question the validity or legality of an order, he is entitled to apply for an appropriate writ but this right of his flows from the order affecting him. The fact that similar orders are passed in the case of other individuals also be it by the same officer or authority, does not mean that the injury caused is a common or class injury so as to justify a single petition with all the individuals similarly affected joining in it as petitioners. The provision in Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, seeks to obviate the inconveniences arising out of a multiplicity of parties - but neither the rule nor its principle can be extended to Writ Petitions. Again the fact that the relief prayed for by the several petitioners each of whose individual right is alleged to have been invaded improperly by the impugned order is grounded on a common objection, the invalidity of the legislation or the rule or some o...
Tag this Judgment!Janaba Muhamad HussIn Nachiar Ammal Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ139
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assessee, the wife of A. Sheik Abdul Khadar a 'nonresident' for the purposes of the Income-tax Act, received from her husband, who was at Bangkok, sums totalling Rs. 9180 during the year of account ending with 31st March, 1942. These amounts were remitted by the husband to India by bank drafts obtained in the name of his agent Yahya Maricar, who paid the amounts to the assessee. The assessee did not submit any return of these items, which constituted 'income' in her hands under Section 4(2) of the Act, in the assessment year 1942-43. The proceedings under Section 34 of the Act were intitiated with the issue of the prescribed notice on 25th July, 1949. The Tribunal recorded that in her appeal against the assessment, which had been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, the aSfesee contended that:(1) the initiation of proceedings on 25th July, 1949, under Section 34 as amended by Act XLVIII of 1948 is invalid as the Department's right tp revise the assessment was ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M.P.L.S. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad32; [1956]30ITR281(Mad); (1955)2MLJ408a
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The question referred to this Court for its determination under Section 66 (1), Income-tax Act is;'Whether the assessment for 1941-42 assessment year completed on 24-3-1942, having become final relief under Section 25 (4) claimed by the assesses on his application, dated 16-3-1950 is due and requires investigation on facts?'The facts necessary to understand the question raised are briefly these. P. SectionEM. Ramaswami Chettiar constituted with his son Subrahmaniam Chettiar, a Hindu undivided family. There was a partition in the family between the father and the son on 14-3-1941, the terms and conditions of which were embodied in a deed executed between the parties on 9-4-1941. This division was accepted by the departmental authorities under Section25-A of the Act on 28-1-19-12 in respect of the assessment for the year 1941-42.The year of account for the assessee was the Tamil year and the relevant accounting year was 13-4-1940 to 13-4-1941. The assessment of ...
Tag this Judgment!M.M.P.L.S. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ406
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The question referred to this Court for its determination under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act is:Whether the assessment, for 1941-42 assessment year completed on 24th March, 1942, having become final, relief under Section 25(4) claimed by the assessee on his application, dated 16th March, 1950, is due and requires investigation on facts?2. The facts necessary to understand the question raised are briefly these. P.S.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar constituted with his son Subramaniam Chettiar, a Hindu undivided family. There was a partition in the family between the father and the son on the 14th of March, 1941, the terms and conditions of which were embodied in a deed executed between the parties on the 9th of April, 1941. This division was accepted by the departmental authorities under Section 25-A of the Act on 28th January, 1942, in respect of the assessment for the year 1941-42. The year of account for the assessee was the Tamil year and the rel...
Tag this Judgment!Janaba Muhamad HussaIn Nachiar Ammal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1956
Reported in: [1956]29ITR848(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee, the wife of A. Sheik Abdul Khadar, a 'non resident' for the purposes of the Income tax Act, received from her husband, who was at Bangkok, sums totaling Rs. 9,180 during the year of count ending with March 31, 1942. These amounts were remitted by the husband to India by bank drafts obtained in the name of his agent Yahiya Maricair, who paid the amounts to the assessee. The assessee did not submit any return of these items, which constituted 'income' in her hands under section 4(2) of the Act, in the assessment year 1942-43. The proceedings under section 34 of the Act were initiated with the issue of the prescribed notice on July 25, 1949. The Tribunal recorded that in her appeal against the assessment, which had been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, the assessee contended that (1) 'the initiation of proceedings on July 25, 1949, under section 34 as amended by Act XLVIII of 1948 is invailld as the Departments right to revise the assessment was gov...
Tag this Judgment!R. C. Rangaswamy Chetty and Bros. Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR941(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - This reference arises out of proceedings under the Excess Profits Tax Act in respect of the assessment to tax levied on two firms R. C. Rangaswami Chetti and Bros., Salem, and R. C. Sundarakrishna Chetti and Bros., Salem, and the question referred for our decision under section 66 (2) is :'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the application of the provisions of section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act and the aggregation of the income of the two firms R. C. Rangaswami Chetti and Bros., and R. C. Sundarakrishna Chetti and Bros., was wrong in law ?'The following facts are necessary to understand the point arising in the reference. One Chennappa Chettiar had seven sons, three by his first wife and four by his second. The first wifes sons were R. C. Rangaswami, R. C. Ramaswami and R. C. Lakshmanan; while his sons by the second wife were R. C. Sundarakrishnan, Govindarajulu, Jagannadhan and Krishnaswami. This undivided Hindu family carried on...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras Vs. H. Kanchilal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC606(Mad)
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal is by the State against the decree of the lower courts holding that the assessment of the sales tax at the enhanced rate of 4J pies in the rupee in respect of the turnover of the sweet-stall of the plaintiff is not legal and that the State is not entitled to levy the tax at that rate. The decision was given by the learned District Munsif of Coimbatore and confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge of Coimbatore.2. The respondent has been running an establishment by name Ananda Bhavan in Big Bazar Road, Coimbatore. The establishment consists of a restaurant section, pan beedi shop section, locks section and sweet-stall. We are now concerned only with the restaurant section and the sweet-stall, as the turnover of the pan beedi section and the locks section are not sought to be assessed at the enhanced rate of 4 1/2 pies in the rupee under the proviso to Section 3( 1 )(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. All the four lines of business are c...
Tag this Judgment!Haji A. Abdul Kader Sahib Vs. the State of Madras Represented by the C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1956
Reported in: (1956)1MLJ574
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a Writ of prohibition directing the second respondent the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore, to forbear from proceeding with the enquiry in pursuance of the notification, G.O. Ms. No. 1256, Department of Industries, Labour and Co-operation, dated 10th May, 1954.2. The reference in question is under the Industrial Disputes Act and the order sought to be quashed is one which purports to refer an industrial dispute between the workers of the Raja Beedi Branches at Venkitang, Pavaratty, Guruvayoor, Manathala and Eringapuram and the management of the Raja Company, Chowghat, South Malabar, to the Industrial Tribunal, Coimbatore, for adjudication.3. The following facts are necessary to be stated to understand the objection raised to the jurisdiction. The petitioner A. Abdul Kadar Sahib, proprietor, Raja Company, Chowghat, is an exporter of beedies. The manner in which this business is conducted by the petitioner is by the em...
Tag this Judgment!Siluvaimani Ammal Vs. Thangiah Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad421; (1956)2MLJ69
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is a wife's petition for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The parties are Indian Christians and were married according to Christian rites on the 18th June, 1929, at Siluvaipuram, Tirunelveli District. The grounds on which dissolution of the marriage was sought were (1) the husband's adultery coupled with such cruelty as, without cruelty, would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et tow and (2) adultery coupled with dfesertion without reasonable excuse for more than two years since 15th August, 1953. The only material evidence tendered by the petitioner was oral. She examined herself and another witness. The allegations in the petition as regards adultery were extremely vague, viz., that the respondent had contracted intimacy with some women. The petitioner's evidence on this point was confined to a mere statement that the respondent was keeping a woman. The testimony of the other witness does not carry us further, for he too only says ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »