Chennai Court August 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.
M.R. Vidyasagar Vs. Income-tax Officer, Circle Ii, Madurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad250
Rajagopalan, J.1. These petitions arose out of proceedings under the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1948-49; the corresponding account years ended respectively with 31-3-1946 and 31-3-1948. The assesses was a Hindu undivided family, of which M. K. Ramaswami Aiyar was the kartha. He died On 4-6-1949. The petitioner is the present kartha of that family.2. Ramaswami Aiyar, as the Kartha of his undivided Hindu family, was a partner of the Madura Knitting Company, and the share of profits derived from this business constituted the principal source of income of this undivided family. The assessment of the assessee could therefore be completed only after his share of the profits of the company had been ascertained. Further, when the assessment of the company was revised on appeal or on a reference under Section 66(1) of the Act, the share of the assessee would become liable to a corresponding revision.3. The assessee became liable to pay tax in advance under the provision...
M. R. Vidyasagar Vs. Income-tax Officer, Madurai, and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1956
Reported in: [1957]31ITR173(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The petitions arose out of proceedings under the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1946-47 and 1948-49; the corresponding account years ended respectively with 31st March, 1946, and 31st March, 1948. The assessee was Hindu undivided family, of which M. K. Ramaswami Aiyar was the karta. He died on 4th June, 1949. The petitioner is the present karta of that family.Ramaswami Aiyar, as the karta of his undivided Hindu family, was a partner of the Madura Knitting company, and the share of profits derived from his business constituted the principle source of income of this undivided family. The assessment of the assessee could therefore be completed only after his share of the profits of the company had been ascertained. Further, when the assessment of the company was revised on appeal or on a reference under section 66 (1) of the Act, the share of the assessee would become liable to a corresponding revision.The assessee became liable to pay tax in advance under the p...
K.P.V. Shaik Mohamed Rowther and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad154; [1956]30ITR747(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J. 1. The question referred to this court under Section 66(1) of the Act ran: 'Whether on 28-3-1949 there was a succession to the old business within the meaning of Section 25(4) of the Indian 'Income-tax Act?' Since we propose to rest our answer to that question on a fairly narrow ground, it may not be necessary to set out over again the history of the assessee firm which can be found from the statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal.2. The assessee firm that claimed relief under Section 25(4) of the Act consisted of four partners, K. P. V. S. Mohammed Meera Rowther of Madras and the three sons of M. M. V. Mohammed Meera Rowther of Nagapattinam, and that was the partnership that continued upto 28-3-1949 when K. P. V. S. Mohammed Meera Rowther died. The deeds of this partnership provided, like the earlier ones that the death of any of the partners should not dissolve the partnership, and that the legal representatives of the deceased partner should be brought into t...
North Arcot District Central Co-operative Stores Ltd. Vs. State Govt. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad163
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, and see no reason to interfere, in the circumstances proved. Though Mr. Ramaswami Mudaliar, learned counsel for the petitioners, alleged that the four separate orders, placed by the Collector of North Arcot with the petitioners for supply of wheat to Cuddappah, Chittoor, Bellary and Anantapur, were in pursuance of one and the same parent contract and formed part of' the same transaction, and therefore would fall within the mischief of Section 17 of the Court-fees Act, he was unable to show the parent contract entered into with the Collector of North Arcot by the petitioners under which they agreed to supply wheat to Cuddappah, Chittoor, Bellary, Anantapur and any other place indicated by him from time to time.2. As the learned Government Pleader pointed out, there was no reference in the plaint to any such parent contract. So we are left ...
S. Suppiah Chettiar Vs. V. Chinnathurai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad216; (1957)ILLJ517Mad
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge of East Tanjore, in O. P. No. 64 of 1953, rejecting the application for permission to sue as a pauper under Or XXXIII Rule 5(d) (1) C. P. Code.2. Tile allegations in the petition are: The first respondent is the owner of a licensed cargo-boat bearing No. 88. The second respondent is the-managing agent of the first respondent and is' also a contractor doing business at Negapattinatm. On or about 12-3-1852 the 2nd respondent on be-half of the first respondent engaged among others the petitioner's son Krishnaraju as a crew of the boat for the purpose of carrying beedi tobacco bundles from Nagapattinam port. After loading, the boat left the port on 12-3-1952. On the voyage-the petitioner's son died in the boat on 16-3-1853 near Tranquebar.On enquiry the petitioner learnt that death Of the petitioner's son was caused by the cross-beam of the mast of the boat breaking and falling on his son. The 2nd respo...
T. Rangaswami Vs. T. Aravindammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad243
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal directed against the order and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli in O. P. No. 186 of 1952.(1a) This O. P. was filed under Section 5 of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act VI of 1949 Clause (h) which provides that either party to a marriage solemnised before or after the commencement of this Act..... may pray that the marriage be dissolved on the ground that the other party was impotent at the time of marriage and continued to be so until the presentation of the petition. This Act has been repealed and replaced by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Section 12(a). The Clause (h) of Section 5 of Act VI of 1949 is identical in language with Clause (a) if Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Therefore no vested right has been taken away and no new right has accrued.2. The petitioner T. Rangaswami is seeking divorce' on the ground of alleged impotence and alleged desertion. He married the respondent Ara-vindammal, who...
Meenakshisundaram Pillai Vs. Ponnu Alias Subbiah Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad297
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Meenakshisundaram Pillai, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 62 of 1952 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, to revise and set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing him to pay court-fee on Rs. 31,000, instead of a fixed court-fee of Rs. 100 paid by him, under Article 17-B of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act, on the ground that the subject matter of the suit was incapable of valuation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, and also the learned Government Pleader as a matter of court-fee is involved. The facts were briefly these. The suit properties originally belonged to the petitioner. They were sold to one Alagamian Chetti, whose legal representatives are defendants 1 to 6 for a sum of Rs. 31,000, by a sale deed dated 5-4-1935. On the same day, a contemporaneous agreement was alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and Alagan...
G. Meenakshisundaram Pillai Vs. Ponnu Alias Subbiah Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: (1956)2MLJ559
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Meenakshisundaram Pillai, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 62 of 1952 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai, to revise and set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge directing him to pay Court-fee on Rs. 31,000 instead of a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 100 paid by him, under Article 17-B of Schedule II of the old Court-Fees Act, on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit was incapable of valuation.2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, and also the learned Government Pleader as a matter of Court-fee is involved. The facts were briefly these. The suit properties originally belonged to the petitioner. They were sold to one Alagannan Chetti, whose legal representatives are defendants 1 to 6 for a sum of Rs. 31,000 by a sale deed, dated 5th April, 1935. On the same day, a contemporaneous agreement was alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff an...
Vittal Alva Vs. Ramanujam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ159
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. This is a revision against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Sankari, on a memo, filed by the petitioner who is an accused in P.R.C. No. 4 of 1956. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police. He has filed a charge-sheet which is the subject of enquiry in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1956 on the file of the same Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The complaint against the petitioner is a private complaint by the accused in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1956. Both the complaints were taken on file by the District Magistrate and though there was an allegation of an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, against the accused in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1956 the District Magistrate was of the opinion that it amounted only to an offence under Section 332, Indian Penal Code and, therefore, triable by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sessions Judge transferred both the cases to the file o this Sub-Divisional Magistrate. As soon as the cases were received by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate...
Maddala Thathiah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Owning the M. and S.M. Rly.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad82
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of Ramaswami Gounder, J., dismissing the appellant's suit in C.S. No. 380 of 1949, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,063-7-3 from the Dominion of India as the owner of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway represented by the General Manager of that Railway. The plaintiff claimed that amount as damages consequent on a breach of contract alleged to have been committed by the defendant. The material facts are not in dispute. In pursuance of an invitation by the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway for tenders for the supply of jaggery to the railway grainshops the plaintiff submitted on 27th January, 1948, a tender in the prescribed form offering to supply 14,000 imperial maunds of cane jaggery, Chittore variety, first sort, during the months of February and March, 1948, at the rate of Rs. 11-4-0 per imperial maund. The defendant in a letter addressed by the Deputy General Manager of the Railway dated 20th January, 1948, accepted t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »