Chennai Court April 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.
C. W. Spencer and Others Vs. Income-tax Officer, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR107(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - 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 1,260 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.Proceeding were taken against Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') under section 23A of the Income-tax Act, which resulted in an order dated 11th March, 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 1950-511 a sum of Rs. 16,411 (the dividend on 1350 shares) and pay income-tax on that basis und...
Madura Knitting Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Excess Profits ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad488; [1956]30ITR764(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J. 1. Two questions were referred under Section 66 (2) of the Income-tax Act in R. O. No. 97 of 1953 and four more under Section 66 (1) In R. C. No. 93 of 1955. These questions arose out of proceedings-to assess the Madura Knitting Co., to income-tax and excess profits tax during the assessment, years 1945-46, 1946-47, 1947-48 and 1948-49. Whether it was liable to income-tax or to excess profits tax, the factors for consideration were virtually the same with reference to each of two of the three items in dispute: (i) com-missions paid by the assessee company to Krishnaram, Kamadhenu and Co., and Sekhar and Co.; (ii) commissions paid to seven employees who held managerial posts. The third item' in dispute was as regards the profits earned by the partnership concern known as Ambal Stores. The questions as framed and referred to this Court mixed up to some extent the three different heads of disputed liabilities, and we would prefer to discuss first the questions at issue bet...
Balusami Reddiar, Minor by Guardian, Nagammal and ors. Vs. Balakrishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad97
1. Defendants 1, 2 and 8 in Oa. S. No. 61 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin appeal against the decree of the learned Judge by which it was held that the properties in Schedules 1 to 4 of the plaint be divided into five equal shares find that plaintiffs 1 to 4 and the first defendant do each get one such part towards the share to which each is entitled and also that the remaining part be divided into two equal halves of which one half be allotted to the share of the fourth plaintiff and the other half be allotted to the share of the second defendant. There were other consequential directions which need not be considered in detail.2. The facts which have given rise to this litigation are as follows: One T. Ramaswami Reddiar belonging to the village of Virusampatti, Koilpatti taluk was possessed of properties which are the subject-matter of the above suit and he died on 13-12-1949, leaving behind him his second wife, the second defendant, his fourth wi...
Siddaya Mudaliar Vs. M.N. Muthayanna Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad183
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The short point in this appeal is Whether the plaintiff appellant, who despatched the goods by rail to the defendants and which goods had been lost in transit, is entitled to re-cover the value thereof from the defendants. Reliance is placed on Section 39 Clause (1) of the Sale of Goods Act, that delivery of the goods to a carrier whether named by the buyer or not, for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, or delivery of the goods to a wharfinger for safe custody, is prima facie deemed to be a delivery of the goods to the buyer. But under Clause 2:--'Unless otherwise authorised by the buyer, theseller shall make such contract with the carrier orwharfinger on behalf of the buyer as may be reasonable having regard to the nature or the goodsand the other circumstances of the case. If theseller omits so to do, and the goods are lost ordamaged in the course or transit or whilst in thecustody of the wharfinger, the buyer may declineto treat the delivery to the c...
Baluswami Reddiar Minor by Guardian Nagammal and ors. Vs. Balakrishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ357
Govinda Menon, J.1. Defendants 1, 2 and 8 in O.S. No. 61 of 1950 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, appeal against the decree of the learned Judge by which it was held that the properties in Schedules 1 to 4 of the plaint be divided into five equal shares and that plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the first defendant do each get one such part towards the share to which each is entitled and also that the remaining part be divided into two equal halves of which one half be allotted to the share of the fourth plaintiff and the other half be allotted to the share of the second defendant. There were other consequential directions which need not be considered in detail.3. The facts which have given rise to this litigation are as follows: One T. Ramaswami Reddiar belonging to the village of Virusampatti, Koilpatti taluk, was possessed of properties which are the subject-matter of the above suit and he died on 13th December, 1949, leaving behind him his second wife, the second d...
K. Sivaramakrishnan Vs. P. Arumugha Mudaliar, Inspector-general of Reg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ460
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of quo warranto questioning the validity of the appointment of Sri P. Arumugha Mudaliar, who has been impleaded as the first respondent, as the Inspector-General of Registration, Madras, by the State Government named as the second respondent.2. The ground of attack is based on the allegation, that Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution has been violated, in that the State Government did not consult the Public Service Commission before making the impugned appointment. Arumugha Mudaliar was an Assistant Secretary to the Government, and by an order, dated 17th March, 1954, the Government of Madras appointed him to the office of the Inspector-General of Registration with effect from 18th April, 1954. The affidavit in support of the petition conceded that under Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution the Madras Public Service Commission had to be consulted when recruitment was made to the post of Inspector-General of Registra...
State of Madras Vs. Madras Electric Tramways (1904) Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad169; [1955]25CompCas378(Mad)
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are two closely connected appeals against the judgments and decrees of Balakrishna Ayyar J. in C.S. Nos. 191 of 1952 and 368 of 1953. The appellant in both these appeals is the State of Madras, and the respondent is the Madras Electric Tramways Ltd., (in liquidation), represented by the Official Liquidator, Official Receiver of this Court.2. The facts are briefly these: By an agreement, dated 15-7-1907, Ex. D-3, entered into.between the Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., and the Madras Electric Tramways Ltd. (incorporation to 1904) the former agreed to supply and the latter agreed to receive electrical energy required by the latter, subject to the following main conditions: The Tramways Company was to take all the electrical energy it required from the Electric Supply Corporation. This energy was to be delivered by the Electric Supply Corporation at the switch-board of the Tramway Company, located at its tramway depot in Egmore. The energy was to be...
Ashok Leyland Ltd., Ennore, Madras Vs. the State of Madras Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad263; [1957]8STC210(Mad)
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The assessee, Ashok Leyland Ltd., is a firm with its factory at Ennore, within the State of Madras, where it assembles motor cars, and with an elaborate organisation spread Over several States for the sale of those cars and their accessories. In the assessment year 1952-53, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the firm to sales-tax on a turn-over of about 30 Jackhs of rupees. He was of theview that turnover of about 111 lakhs was not liableto be taxed under the Act.The Commercial Tax Officer took up the matter 'suo motu' in exercise of the revisional powers vested in him by Section 12 of the Madras General Sales-tax Act. He overruled the objection of the assessee, that he had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment, and eventually he held that a turnover of about 43 lakhs was also liable to be taxed.2. The assessee appealed to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also negatived the contention, of the assessee, that the Commercial Tax Officer had n juris...
S. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and anr. Vs. P.S. Palani Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad599
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Krishnaswami Mudaliar the appellant in W. A. No. 56 of 1956 had a permit which authorised him to run a bus M. D. J. 971 between Vellore & Thiruvannamalai. On 1st December, 1953 the Regional Transport Officer, Vellore, varied the conditions of the permit which Krishnaswami Mudaliar held so as to enable him to run the bus upto Thanlpedi. In effect this gave him an extended route of 20 miles. Similarly Kumaraswaml the appellant in W. A. No. 57 of 1956 held a permit which enabled him to operate bus No. M. D. J. 1012 between Vellore and Thiruvannamalai.On 15th January 1954. the Regional Transport Officer, Vellore, extended the scope of the permit so as to enable the bus to be plied along a further stretch of eleven miles to Thandrampet. Being aggrieved by the extensions which the Regional Transport. Officer had granted to these two individuals, one Pachia Pillai moved the State Government to revise the orders of the Regional Transport Officer. The Government dismisse...
Bollam Venkatakrishnaiah Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1956
Reported in: [1956]7STC771(Mad)
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of prohibition to direct the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle, Non-resident, Vepery, Madras, from taking proceedings for the recovery of sales tax from the petitioner under the Madras General Sales Tax Act.2. The petitioner is a resident of the Hyderabad State, and he has been exporting goods into the Madras State. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the respondent here, issued a notice to the petitioner on 5th October, 1954, requiring him to register himself as a dealer under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, and submit his turnover in the form prescribed. The assessment year in question is 1953-54. The petitioners, however, sent a reply stating that as they were non-residents, and had no agents to conduct their transactions within the State of Madras, their transactions were not within the purview of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, and their sales were exempted from tax by the provisions of Ar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »