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.
K.P.S.V. Rajarathina Nadar and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax/Exc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: [1956]29ITR834(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The questions referred to this Court under section 66(I) of the Income-tax Act arose out of the proceedings under action 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 ends with August 26, 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 has 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 of Rs. 29,748. On the...
Malligai Sundaram Ammal Vs. Krishnaswamy Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad573
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the dismissalof O. S. No. 27 of 1949, on the tile of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchitapalli and the facts and circumstances which have given rise to this appeal areas follows: The plaintiff and the second defendant are two of the children of one Arunachala Pillai, a substantial and wealthy businessman owning properties in Tiruchirapalli 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 Thangavelu who is younger than the second defendant. The plaintiffs husband, who is examined as P.W. 3, in comparison with the affluence of Avunachala is somewhat in inaigent circumstances, and it is the case of both the parties that ho was living in his ancestral house in Chimmkadai St., Tiruchirapalli, where his avocation was to help Aru-nachala in the management of his business by purchasing goods and sending them to Ceylon where...
P.L.Pr.Pr. Periakaruppan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Rajamanickavasagam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ233
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether a creditor's right to proceed under Section 19-A of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938) is co-extensive with the rights given to an agriculturist-debtor under the same section. A reading of Section 19-A of the said Act makes it clear that while an agriculturist-debtor could apply not merely for a declaration of the debt due by him to his creditors but also for a declaration that the debt that was due by him had already become discharged; so far as the creditor is concerned, the only right that seems to be given to him under the section is to approach the Court for a declaration as to what exactly is the amount due to him from the agriculturist-debtor. While the relief that can be sought by the debtor and the creditor under this section are the same in so far as the declaration of what exactly the amount of debt is, one further relief is given to the agriculturist...
Devaki, Minor and ors. Vs. Rajagopal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1956Mad628; (1956)2MLJ258
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against, the Order of the learned Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, refusing to allow the petitioners to sue in forma pauperis in a suit brought by the petitioners for redemption of the mortgaged property.2. The property is said to have been purchased for Rs. 1,750. Long prior to the sale it was mortgaged by way of simple mortgage and the amount due under the same with interest came to Rs. 800 on the date of suit. There seems to be dispute as to what exactly is the amount due to the mortgagee under the suit mortgage. Whatever that be, it has to be gone into and decided by the Court when disposing of the suit. But so far as the suit itself is concerned it is one for redeeming the mortgage, that is to say, paying off the amount due under the mortgage and releasing the property from the mortgage debt.3. The learned City Civil Judge has held that since the mortgaged property is subject to encumbrance only to the exten...
Sha Hindumull Dalichand and Anr. Vs. Madras Kirana Merchants' Associat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ416
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The Madras Kirana Merchants' Association acquired its corporate life by virtue of a licence granted to it under Section 26 of the Indian G mpanies Act. The Memorandum of Association sets out that its objects are, inter alia, to remove the trade difficulties of Kirana businessmen in Madras, to formulate such lines of conduct for members as to facilitate trade, to establish just and equitable principles in trade and commerce and to simplify and facilitate transactions. Paragraph 4 of the Memorandum of Association makes it clear that it is not an association intended for profit. Paragraphs 6 and 7 state that the liability of the members of the association is limited, and that in the case of the association being wound up, the liability of the members is limited to Rs. 20. Article 4 of the Articles of Association provides:Any person, firm, association, company or corporation enaged or interested in Kirana trade, desirous of joining the association shall be elig...
Sivasubramania Pillai and ors. Vs. the Panruti Industrial Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad21
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. Except under very exceptional and special circumstances an employee is not entitled to sue an employer for account. See -- 'Ramachandra Mahavados & Co. v. Moovakat Moidunkutti Birankutti and Bros.' : AIR1938Mad707 . The general law is, it is only an employer that can call upon his agent for an account. The vice versa is not always correct. See -- 'Mahadevi v. Sankara Menon', 51 Mad LW 171: AIR 1940 Mad 504 . It is impossible to say that the exception applies to the present ease. Therefore the plaintiff's suit for an account is not maintainable.2. But it is seen from para 10 of his plaint, that the plaintiff's prayer is for a sum of Rs. 541-3-0, being the amount alleged to be due to him for commission from the defendant for selling the defendant's goods. The trial Court examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that that amount was duo to the plaintiff.As regard? Sub-clause (2) and (3) of para 10, it is difficult to say that they relate to specific items....
C.P. Azeez Haji Vs. the Government of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC323(Mad)
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was for a declaration that the order of the Commercial Tax Officer revising the assessment is null and void. The plaintiff is a fish merchant. The turnover of the assessable sales for 1948-49 came to Rs. 30,914-10-0 within the State of Madras, and to Rs. 23,363-10-0 outside the State of Madras. He paid the tax due on amount so calculated for the period 1948-49. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Perintalamanna, has assessed the turnover at Rs. 81,300 as he did not accept the accounts of the plaintiff. An appeal was perferred to the Commercial Tax Officer who issued a notice to the plaintiff as required under the rules and enhanced the turnover to Rs. 90,000 and assessed him on that figure. The plaintiff preferred a revision to the Board of Revenue which was rejected. The order of the Commercial Tax Officer dated 16th March, 1950, was attacked as being ultra vires and null and void....
Krishnammal Vs. N. Krishna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ30
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The first respondent-mortgagee filed a petition under Section 69-A(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, O.P. No. 331 of 1954 - and obtained an order appointing a receiver of the income of the mortgaged property. Subsequently, he filed an application (Application No. 1458 of 1955 in the said O.P. No. 331 of 1954) praying that directions may be given to the receiver to sell the mortgaged property by public auction. This application was opposed by the mortgagors inter alia on the ground that the application was not competent. The objection, however, does not appear to have been pressed properly. The aspect, which was urged before the learned Judge, appears to have been that O.P. No. 331 of 1954 was no longer pending and therefore no interlocutory application could be taken in the said O.P. Whatever may be the merits of this objection, there can be no doubt whatever that the other objection, which was raised on behalf of the mortgagors that the Court has no jurisdict...
G.P. Azzez Haji Vs. Government of Madras by the Commercial-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ203
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises was for a declaration that the order of the Commercial Tax Officer revising the assessment is null and void. The plaintiff is a fish merchant. The turnover of the assessable sales for 1948-49 came to Rs. 30,914-10-0 within the State of Madras, and to Rs. 23,363-10-0 outside the State of Madras. He paid the tax due on amount so calculated for the period 1948-49. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Perintalmanna, has assessed the turnover at Rs. 81,300 as he did not accept the accounts of the plaintiff. An appeal was preferred to the Commercial Tax Officer who issued a notice to the plaintiff as required under the rules and enhanced the turnover to Rs. 90,000 and assessed him on that figure. The plaintiff preferred a revision to the Board of Revenue which was rejected. The order of the Commercial Tax Officer, dated 16th March, 1950, was attacked as being ultra vires and null and void....
Ramanatha Sastrigal Vs. Alagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ157
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The plaintiff appellant instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises as assignee of a simple mortgage dated 12th February, 1937, evidenced by Exhibit A-1 executed by the 1st defendant's deceased father in favour of the plaintiff's aunt for Rs. 300 with interest at 6 per cent, per annum and assigned over to the plaintiff by his aunt under a deed of assignment dated 19th April, 1942, Exhibit A-2. The contesting defendant is the 2nd defendant, who is a purchaser of the suit property in execution of a simple money decree obtained by his father against the 1st defendant's father in O.S. No. 496 of 1933 on the file of the Chief Court, Puddukottai. He attacked the truth and validity of the suit mortgage and denied it was supported by consideration or that it was duly attested according to law or otherwise binding upon him and pointed out that the same was brought about in the following circumstances. In execution of the money decree obtained by his father in O...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »