Chennai Court April 1956 Judgments
Mrs. Leela Mahajan and ors. Vs. T. Stanes and Co. Ltd., Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad225
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. T. Stanes and Company was a private limited company and therefore subject to Section 23-A of the Income-tax Act. This company has been the managing agent of two plantation companies, one of within is called the United Coffee Simply Co. Ltd (U.C.S. for short). T. Stanes and Company was also operating a trading section handling coffee curing, stores, fertilisers and other articles. The U.C.S. has a share capital of Rs. 6,00,000/- divided into 40,000 shares of Rs. 15 each. Of these 40,000 shares T. Stanes and Company Ltd. hold 21,510 shares, that is to say, a little over 51 per cent.2. On 1-9-1955 T. Stanes and Co Ltd wrote Ex. R. 1 to the Directors of the U.C.S., proposing to acquire the shares held by outsiders in the U.C.S., on certain terms. Since out of 40.000 shares in U.C.S. T. Stanes and Co. Ltd. held 21.510, the shares in the hands of outsiders were only 18490. The letter Ex. R. 1 explained,'The present ordinary shares of this company are now of the d...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Vs. V.R.B. Gopalarathnam Gupta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC16(Mad)
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The State is the appellant. The plaintiff was assessed to sales tax in the sum of Rs. 800-3-9 for the two assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50 in respect of the turnover of the sale of jaggery by him. The plaintiff-respondent is a landlord in Udamalpet. He has been leasing his nanja lands to various tenants on rents for raising sugar-cane crop, the rent being payable in jaggery. The tenants used to supply such jaggery to wholesale merchants at prices fixed according to sample and the merchants used to credit the value of such jaggery to the plaintiff's account in their ledgers and pay over the same to the plaintiff. The assessment was contested in the suit out of which this appeal arises on the ground that the plaintiff is not a 'dealer' and that in any event jaggery must be considered to be agricultural produce and it is exempt from inclusion in the 'turnover' as denned in Section 2 (i) of the Act. On both these questions, a Bench of this Court in Vaidyanatha...
Tag this Judgment!G. Radhakrishna Chettiar and ors. Vs. the State of Madras Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ279
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of suitable directions in regard to proceedings taken under the Madras-Town Planning Act for the acquisition of certain land belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of forming certain roads under a scheme framed in the Tiruchirapalli Town.2. It is necessary to state a few facts to understand the points raised. The petitioners who are three in number are owners of the lands which are specified in the affidavit in support of the petition and which are all situate in Ward No. 3 of the Tiruchirapalli Municipality. By a notification issued under Section 12 of the Madras. Town Planning Act, the Provincial Government required the Tiruchirapalli municipality to prepare, publish and submit for their sanction a draft scheme on or before 31st March, 1945. The municipality, however, did not submit the scheme within the time specified in this notification but they submitted it in the year 1...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Coimbatore Vs. V.R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ569
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The State is the appellant. The plaintiff was assessed to sales-tax in the sum of Rs. 800-3-9 for the two assessment years 1948-1949 and 1949-1950 in respect of the turnover of the sale of jaggery by him. The plaintiff respondent is a landlord in Udamalpet. He has been leasing his nanja lands to various tenants on rents for raising sugar-cane crop, the rent being payable in jaggery. The tenants used to supply such jaggery to wholesale merchants at prices fixed according to sample and the merchants used to credit the Value of such jaggery to the plaintiff's account in their ledgers and pay over the same to the plaintiff. The assessment was contested in the suit out of which this appeal arises on the ground that the plaintiff is not a 'dealer' and that in any event jaggery must be considered to be agricultural produce and it is exempted from inclusion in the 'turnover' as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act. On both these questions, a Bench of this Court in Vaidy...
Tag this Judgment!Uthamaram Nathusam Sait and ors. Vs. Hude Gopalakrishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad463
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. The appellant in the second appeal is one Nathuram Sait, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 237 of 1949, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Hosdrug (O. S. No. 71 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kasargod). He had brought the suit, praying for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, Gopalakrishnayya, for entering, claiming to be the kuzhikanomdar, the suit land, S. No. 451/2, of West Eleri village, measuring 16 acres 40 cents, and containing a valuable pepper garden, and restraining defendants 2 and 3, Abdul Khader and Abdul Rahman, from joining the first defendant in any trespass on the said land which Nathuram Sait claimed to be in his exclusive possession and enjoyment ever since 11-4-1937, when it was delivered to him through Court by P. W- 2, the amin, in the presence of P. W. 1, his agent.Nathuram Sait had filed O. S. No. 13 of 1826 on the file of the Sub Court, Tellicheny, against the-Kooleri family, a family of Moplah ...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad190
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the Government who are the defendants in the suit would be liable for the seizure of the stock of the plaintiff in pursuance of a notice issued to the effect that it was decided to revoke the licence granted to the plain-tiff under Section 18 of the Madras Prohibition Act, 1937, The plaintiff was the proprietor of Mani Pharmacy in Cuddalore and he was granted licence for the year 1950-51 under Section 18 of the Madras Prohibition Act for sale of brandy and medicated wines and similar preparations containing alcohol.It was renewed for the year 1950-51 by the proceedings of the Collector dated 28-3-1950 as evidenced by Ex. A-4. Condition 10 of the licence provided that the Collector may with the sanction of the Board of Revenue at his discretion revoke the licence at any time after giving the licencee 15 days' notice of such, revocation. The Collector issued the notice Ex. A-5 after obtaining the pre-' ...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Rangaswami Chettiar and Co. Vs. Government of Madras Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad301; [1957]8STC222(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The decision in this batch of tax revision cases involves the construction of Rule 18(2) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules framed under the Madras General Sales tax Act. The material portion of Rule 18 of the Turnover and Assessment Rules whose construction we are called upon to decide runs thus:'18(1):-- Any dealer who manufactures groundnut oil and cake from groundnut and/or kernel purchased by him may, on application to the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area in which he carries on his business, be registered, as a manufacturer of groundnut oil and cake.(2) Every such manufacturer shall be entitled to a deduction under Clause (k) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 equal to the value of the groundnut and (or) kernel purchased and converted by him into oil and cake provided that the amount for which the oil is sold is included in his turnover. Explanation 1 : For the purpose of this sub-rule: (a) 143 lb. of groundnut shall be taken to be equivalen...
Tag this Judgment!C.W. Spencer and ors. Vs. Income-tax Officer, City Circle Ii, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad133
1. Each of the petitioners held ten shares in Gannon, Dunkerley & Co, Ltd., Bombay. Each of them obtained a further 80 shares when bonus shares were issued by the company in 1948. They disclosed in their returns for the assessment year 1950-51 the dividend income on those 90 shares. The books of the company showed that each of them had in addition 1260 shares registered in his name. The claim of the petitioners was that these snares were in their names as the nominees of one of the controlling shareholders of that company. viz, M. R. Morarka.2. Proceedings were taken against Gannon Dunkerley & Co., hereinafter referred to as the "company" under Section 23-A of the Income-tax Act. which resulted in an order dated 11-3-1955. On an apportionment of those undisbursed profits each of the petitioners was liable to treat as part of his income, assessable in the year of assessment 1950-51 a sum of Rs. 16,411 (the dividend on 1350 shares) and pay incometax on that basis under Section 23-A. Noti...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Nachimuthu Vs. V.S.K. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad221; (1953)2MLJ556
Rajamannar, C.J.1. These two appeals arises from the judgment of Rajagopala Aiyangar J. disposing of two writ petitions, Nos. 179 and 196 of 1956. The only question involved in these appeals is the construction of one ot the rules framed under the Madras Places of Public Resort Act and its applicability to the facts of this case. The appellant and' the contesting first respondent (who will be referred to as the respondent) are proprietors of two rival touring talkies. Rule 18 (a) of the aforesaid rules runs thus:'No license shall be granted under the Act for the use of any temporary building for public resort or entertainment unless -- (a) the building is provided on all its sides with an open space which in no part thereof shall be less than 50 yards in width: Provided that the licensing authority with the sanction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the District Magistrate, or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the District Magistrate 'if he is himself the licensing authority, may gran...
Tag this Judgment!C.W. Spencer Vs. the Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ518
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Each of the petitioners held ten shares in Gannon, Dunkerley & Co., Limited, Bombay. Each of them obtained a further 80 shares when bonus shares were issued by the Company in 1948. They disclosed in their returns for the assessment year 1950-51 the dividend income on those go-shares. The books of the company showed that each of them had in addition 1260 shares registered in his name. The claim of the petitioners was that these shares were in their names as the nominees of one of the controlling shareholders of that company, viz., M.R. Morarka.2. Proceedings were taken against Gannon, Dunkerley & Co., hereinafter referred to as the 'Company' under Section 23-A of the Income-tax Act, which resulted in an order, dated nth March, J955. On an apportionment of those undisbursed profits each of the petitioners was liable to treat as part of his income, assessable in the year of assessment 1950-51 a sum of Rs. 16,411 (the dividend on 1350 shares) and pay income-tax on th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »