Chennai Court August 1956 Judgments
Mrs. Badima Bivi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad256; [1956]30ITR742(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. There was no dispute about the facts with reference to which we have to answer the question referred under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act:'Whether the sum of Rs. 25,000 or any part thereof is assessable in the year of account to Income-tax under Section 4(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.'In the year of account ending with 31-3-1948, the assessee Mrs. Badima Bivi received from her husband who was resident abroad three sums of money totaling Rs. 25,000. That sum was included in her assessable income under the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act in the assessment year 1948-49. The assessee's husband remitted to the credit of his own account with the Tanjore Permanent Bank Ltd., Tanjore, a total sum of Rs. 19,677 in the year of account ending with 31-3-1947 and a further sum of Rs. 3115 in the year 1947-18. It was out of the amount lying to his credit in that Bank that this sum of Rs. 25,000 was paid to the assesses during 1947-48 by three cheques drawn in the name ...
Tag this Judgment!Mysore Fertiliser Co., Madras Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and Exces ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad257; [1956]30ITR734(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assessee firm consisted of three partners, Venkatesam Chetti, Sreenivasalu Chetti arid Manickam Gupta. Each was the kartha of his undivided family. Each of the partners had a third share. Venugopal Chetti and Venkatamuni Cheti were the Managers of the firm and its business. Venugopal was in charge of the office at Madras. Venkatamuni undertook the necessary touring. Venugopal was the undivided son of Sreenivasalu, while Venkatamuni was the undivided brother of Venkatesam. Venugopal and Venkatamuni were all along paid remuneration for the services they rendered to the firm, but the remuneration paid to them was consistently disallowed by the departmental authorities under Section 10(4) (b), Income-tax Act.2. In the assessment year 1946-47, the claim preferred by the assessee for the deduction of the remuneration it had paid to its two managers, Venugopal and Venkatamuni, was again disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!K.K. Venkatachalam Chettiar Company Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1956
Reported in: [1957]8STC271(Mad)
Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.1. The present is a case where the question is whether a consignee retailer under the scheme of distribution of controlled goods, in this particular case textiles, is liable to pay sales tax. A similar question was raised in S.A. No. 921 of 1953 Since reported as P. Vaidyanatha Iyer v. State of Madras [1957] 8 S.T.C. 268 before me and I held that the position of the plaintiff therein who was a consignee retail dealer was not that of a dealer and he cannot come within the meaning of a dealer as defined in the Act and that, therefore, he would not be liable to pay any sales tax. I held that even though he does not call himself as an agent, he was only an accommodator or a distributing retail consignee, and the fact that he does not describe himself as an agent does not change the real character of the transactions and his part in such transactions, that the remuneration which he was paid was not a percentage of the price but the actual expenses incurred and interes...
Tag this Judgment!Rengachari Vs. Somasundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad168
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one Rengachari for revising and setting aside the order of the District Judge, West Tanjore, in A. S. No. 73 of 1953 filed by him, directing him to pay court-fee on the entire amount of the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage, and not merely on the market value of the one-fourth of the mortgaged properties which he claimed for himself as not redeemable.2. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel on both sides- I have no doubt that, on the facts of this case, where the plaintiff has got a decree for redemption of all the mortgaged properties, including the properties claimed by the petitioner, and the petitioner is attacking the entire decree and wants the entire decree to be set aside in toto and the suit dismissed, the proper court-fee payable would be certainly on the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage.Reliance was placed by Mr. Raghavarama Sastri...
Tag this Judgment!Radha Rukmani Ammal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad568
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this Court under Section 66 (1) of the Income-tax Act arose out of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1944-45. The assessee was the Hindu undivided family, which consisted of Subbarayulu Chettiar and his sons. After the death of Subbarayulu Cheltiar on. 18-2-1944, that undivided family, of which he had been the karta, consisted of his two minor sons with their mother Radha Rukmani Animal as their guardian. The account year ended only on 13-4-1944, that is, after the death of Subbarayulu Chettiar. For the assessment year 1944-45, notice under Section 22 (2) of the Act was issued to the assessee, at that stage represented by Radha Rukmani Animal as the guardian of the minor co-parceners. It was she who submitted the return on behalf of the assessee on 11-12-1944. That return was based on the accounts maintained during most of the year of account by Subbarayulu Chettiar. That return was accepted as substantially correct, and the a...
Tag this Judgment!Edavan Kavingal Kelappan Nambiar Vs. Moolakal Kunhi Raman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad164
1. This revision petition is by the 2nd defendant in S. C. S. No. 262 of 1953 on the file of the District Munsif of Taliparamba. This suit was laid against two defendants for the recovery of amounts due under a kuri started by the plaintiff. The first defendant bid at the kuri on 27-9-1951 for two tickets and was paid the amounts. The future subscriptions were not paid and the suit was for the recovery of these amounts. The 2nd defendant executed a voucher along with the 1st defendant the subscriber guaranteeing the payment by the subscriber, the 1st defendant.2. The 1st defendant contested the suit on the ground that he was a minor at the time when he joined the kuri and bid at the auction and therefore was not liable for the suit claim. The plea of the 2nd defendant was that he was only surety In respect of the 1st defendant's liability and that as the contract between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was void he was not liable on the guarantee either.That the first defendant bid ...
Tag this Judgment!Edavan Kavingal Kelappan Nambiar Vs. Moolakal Kunhi Raman and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ544
1. This C.R.P. which came on for disposal before one of us in the first instance was refererd to a Bench in view of the importance of the point raised and the absence of any decision of this Court on the question involved.2. The facts of the case have been set out sufficiently in the order of reference and we feel it not necessary to repeat them. Bereft of unessentials, the question raised for our consideration is whether a surety for a debt for which a minor made himself liable could be proceeded against on his contract of guarantee. The District Munsif has held in the affirmative, and it is the correctness of this position that has been canvassed before us in this petition.3. The minor was of course not liable and the suit has been dismissed as against him. As regards the surety who is the petitioner before us, Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act enacts:128. The liability of the surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it as otherwise provided by the contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppathammal Vs. Sakthi Alias Thayammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad695
Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Coimbatore, on an application under Section 43(1) at the Guardians and Wards Act, refusing to grant interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent the property guardian from handing over any portion of the income, of the minor's properties to the 2nd respondent who is the minor's step mother or retaining any portion thereof for herself. 2. Tile matter has had a considerable amount of previous history and the circumstances in which this application came to be filed were briefly these. One Andavan Chettiar, the father of the minor concerned in this appeal, died on 12-3-1950 leaving considerable properties. This minor boy, by name Arunthavachelvam, was the sole issue of the deceased who left him surviving besides of course this minor child two widows Thayammal and Venkalakshmi Animal, the former being the mother of the minor. The deceased also left behind him his own mother Kuppathal who is the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. T.P. Khaitan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad4; 1957CriLJ69
1. These three appeals by the Public Prosecutor raise for consideration the proper interpretation of Section 91(B)(1), Indian Companies Act. The Magistrate before whom the accused in the several appeals were charged has held that there was no contravention of the provisions of this section and has by his judgment dated 30-1-1956 acquitted the accused. It is from this order of acquittal that these appeals have been preferred.The learned Advocate-General appearing for the appellant urged that he desired to have a considered decision on the construction of the provision I have mentioned above, but as 3 was clearly of the opinion that the decision of learned Magistrate was correct, I did not think it necessary to issue notice to the accused under Section 422, Criminal P. C.2. The facts which have given rise to these proceedings are as follows : Messrs. Oakley Bow-den and Co. (Madras) Ltd., is a public company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is managed by a Board of three dire...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. T.P. Kaithan, Director of Oakley Bowden and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ590
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These three appeals by the Public Prosecutor raise for consideration the proper interpretation of Section 91-B(1) of the Indian Companies Act. The Magistrate before whom the accused in the several appeals were charged has held that there was no contravention of the provisions of this section and has by his judgment dated 31st January, 1956, acquitted the accused. It is from this order of acquittal that these appeals have been preferred. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the appellant urged that he desired to have a considered decision on the construction of the provision I have mentioned above but as I was clearly of the opinion that the decision of the learned Magistrate was correct, I did not think it necessary to issue notice to the accused under Section 422, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The facts which have given rise to these proceedings are as follows : - Messrs. Oakley Bowden & Co. (Madras), Ltd., is a public company registered under the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »