Chennai Court February 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.
Mathamangalath Ananthanarayana Subramania Iyer's eldest son, Sivaramak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad214
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession, the plaintiff's father having purchased the suit properties in a Court sale under Ex. A-1 dated 24th June 1943. The properties were brought to sale in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 44 of 1095 M.E. of the Travancore State. That suit was a suit for maintenance by a junior member of a Marumakathayam tarwad for maintenance against the members of the kovilagam. It was filed in the District Court, Kottayam in the Travancore State. The decree was for arrears of maintenance and the future maintenance, the amount awarded to the plaintiff-decrce-holder in that suit and the future maintenance was declared a charge on the tarwad properties. It is common ground that the tarwad properties were not specified in the decree. The Kovilagam owned properties both in the Travancore State and in British India in North Malabar. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 44 of 1095 had the decree in the Travancore Court transmitted to the Distr...
In Re: Ramachandran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad505; 1957CriLJ863
1. The first and second accused' in Sessions Case No. 68 of 1955 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Salem, are the appellants in the above two appeals. They were tried on five charges: firstly, for an offence under Section 302. I.P.C. against the first accused for having caused the death of a person called Pookaran alias Krishnan, the second charge is against the second accused for abetment of the offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C., the third charge is against the first accused for having caused hurt to P.W. 2 in the case, an offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., the fourth charge is against the second accused for having caused hurt to P.W. 2, aw offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., and the fifth charge is against the second accused for having caused hurt to P.W. 1, an offence punishable under Section 323, I.P.C. The learned Judge convicted the first accused on the first charge, and the second accused on the second and fourth cha...
In Re: Parasram Jethanand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ119
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These three references under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act raise for consideration a common question of law regarding the proper interpretation, among others, of Section 14(2)(c) and the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the Income-Tax Act.2. The admitted facts in regard to the above cases are these : Referred Case No. 47 of 1951 relates to the assessment of one Parasram Jethanand, a merchant carrying on business in paper at Madras and Bangalore. The reference concerned with the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48. The Madras business yielded a profit in the two years named above of Rs. 17,340 and Rs. 55,621 respectively, while the assessee sustained a loss in the branch business at Banglore of Rs. 6408 and Rs. 14,603, in the two respective years. The assessee claimed that for the computation of the total income on which he could be taxed the loss sustained by him in his business in paper at Bangalore should be taken into account and it was only ...
E. Alfred Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ149
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Ebenezer, a Christian, died intestate on 22nd November, 1945. The petitioner and his eight sisters were the children of Ebenezer and his heirs and legal representatives. The income that had accrued to Ebenezer during the account year ending 31st March, 1945, was assessed in the assessment year 1946-47 under the provisions of Section 24-B(2) of the Income-tax Act, after the issue of a notice under Section 22(2) of the Act to the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased Ebenezer. The assessment was completed on 26th March, 1951, and a notice of demand was issued to the petitioner under Section 29 of the Act. The petitioner appealed against the order of assessment to the Assistant Commissioner, who substantially confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer.2. During the pendency of the appeal a penalty of Rs. 250 was first levied on the petitioner under Section 46(1) of the Act. Subsequently to the termination of the appeal, when the time finally gran...
K.P.S.V. Rajarathina Nadar and Sons Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad533; (1956)2MLJ154
Rajagopalan, J.1. The questions referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act arose out of the proceedings under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act and Section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act with reference to the revised assessment for the assessment year 1946-47. The previous year for income-tax and, the chargeable accounting period for the Excess Profits Tax ended with 26th August, 1945. The assessee, a firm which traded mainly in arecanuts, had its head office at Virudhunagar, in what was then known as British India. The assessee had to pay the excise duty imposed by the Government of India on arecanuts, even on those which he had bought in Travancore and brought into the taxable territories. In the accounting year he was assessed to an excise duty which amounted to Rs. 40,174. He also paid it during the accounting year. In the year of account the Travancore State also imposed an excise duty on arecanuts, which amounted in the case of the assessee to Rs. 29,748. O...
Kaliappa Reddiar Vs. Thangamuthu Alias Thangaswami Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ301
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The point that arises in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is whether the order of dismissal passed on 31st October, 1944, in E.P. No. 250 of 1944, is a final order so as to attract the bar of limitation or whether it was only an order for statistical or administrative purposes. Both the Courts below have been of the opinion that it was a final order and that the subsequent execution petition, namely, E.P. No. 229 of 1952, filed on 17th April, 1952, was out of time, having been filed nearly eight years after the earlier order of 1944.2. After E.P. No. 250 of 1944 was filed, there was an order for proclamation and batta on 10th August, 1944. Batta was paid and proclamation was also settled. The sale was fixed for 2nd October, 1944. This order was passed on 14th August, 1944. In the meanwhile a petition which was subsequently numbered as I.A. No. 622 of 1944, was filed under Section 47 by defendants 4 and 5. It was returned on 18th August, 1944. In that pe...
Mahalinga Shetty Vs. Jalaja Shedthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ446
Govinda Menon, J.1. These two appeals arise out of O.S. No. 144 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, South Kanara, at Mangalore, which was a suit for partition by some members of an Aliyasantana family against the other members and the question that the learned Judge had to decide, in the main, was whether the karar Exhibit A-3, dated 30th April, 1931, did attract the operation of Section 36(6) of the Madras Aliyasantana Act (Act IX of 1949) or not. The facts may be shortly stated.2. Under a partition deed Exhibit A-2, dated 5th June, 1918, the family of the present parties got divided from their parent kutumba and in that document the B-schedule properties were allotted to this family. One item in the schedule to Exhibit A-2 had been separately demarcated for Daiva Devara Viniyogas to be performed by the present 2nd defendant. Exhibit A-3 is a Thaka Karar to which 1st defendant, and defendant, 1st plaintiff and the deceased Nethravathi Shedthi as well as defendants 3 ...
T.C.K. Malligai Sundaram Ammal Vs. P.R. Krishnaswamy Reddiar (Died) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ154
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of O.S. No. 27 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirappalli and the facts and circumstances which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:2. The plaintiff and the second defendant are two of the children of one Arunachala Pillai, a substantial and wealthy businessman owning properties in Tiruchirappalli district and carrying on business on a large scale in Ceylon. He had two other children, namely, a daughter named Sitalakshmi Ammal who is elder to the plaintiff and Thangavalu who is younger than the second defendant. The plaintiff's husband, who is examined as P.W. 3, in comparison with the affluence of Arunachala is somewhat indigent in circumstances, and it is the case of both the parties that he was living in his ancestral house in Chinnak-kadai Street, Tiruchirappalli, where his avocation was to help Arunachala in the management of his business by purchasing goods and sending them to Ce...
E. Alfred Vs. Additional Income-tax Officer, Circle I, Salem, and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad517; [1956]29ITR708(Mad)
The Order of the Court was delivered byRAJAGOPALAN, J. - Ebenezer, a Christian, died intestate on November 22, 1945. The petitioner and his eight sisters were the children of Ebenezer and his heirs and legal representatives. The income that had accrued to Ebenezer during the account year ending March 31, 1946, was assessed in the assessment year 1946-47 under the provisions of section 24B(2) of the Income-tax Act, after the issue of a notice under section 22(2) of the Act to the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased Ebenezer. The assessment was completed on March 26, 1951, and a notice of demand was issued to the petitioner under section 29 of the Act. The petitioner appealed against the order of assessment to the Assistant Commissioner, who substantially confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer.During the pendency of the appeal a penalty of Rs. 250 was first levied on the petitioner under section 46(I) of the Act. Subsequent to the termination of the appeal, when...
Parasram Jethanand and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: [1956]29ITR818(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - These three reference under section 66(I) of the Indian Income-tax Act raise for consideration a common question of law regarding the proper interpretation, among others, of section 14(2)(c) and the first proviso to section 24(I) of the Income-tax Act.The admitted facts in regard to the above cases are those : Referred Case No. 47 of 1951 relates to the assessment of one Parasram Jethanand, a merchant carrying on business in paper at Madras and Bangalore. The reference is concerned with the assessment years 1945-47 and 1947-48. The Madras business yielded a profit in the two years named above of Rs. 17,340 and Rs. 55,621 respectively, while the assessee sustained a loss in the branch business at Bangalore of Rs. 6,408 and Rs. 14,603, in the two respective years. The assessee claimed that for the computation of the total income on which he could be taxed the loss sustained by him in his business in paper at Bangalore shout be taken into account and it was only ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »