Chennai Court April 1957 Judgments
Myitkyina Trading Depot Vs. Dy. Tahsildar, Paramakudi, Ramnad Dist. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad792; [1957]32ITR393(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner firm which consisted of two partners, Ebrahim Ali and Mohammad Esoof, was unregistered for purposes of assessment to income-tax. The firm had its business mainly in Rangoon, and it had a branch office at Madras. The partners were residents of Illayangudi in Ramanathapuram District, On 1-4-1941 Esoof left for Burma, and his partner Ebrahim followed him in November, 1941. Subsequent to March 1942, when Burma was occupied by enemy forces, communications between India and Burma were severed for the duration of the war. Ebrahim and Esoof returned to Illayangudi in 1945-48. The partnership was dissolved in 1947.2. For the assessment year 1939-40 the firm lodged a return, which showed that its income was below the assessable limit. The assessment was completed on 6-3-1940. The income from Burma was not taken into account then. The explanation given in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit was:'At this time because of enemy occupation of Burma, die income from f...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Parasurama Prabhu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ392
ORDERSomasundaram, J.This is a revision case filed by the State against the order of the Eighth Presidency Magistrate under the following circumstances. The police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for an offence under Section 325 I p, C. Being a warrant case it is triable under the provisions of the warrant chapter. Section 251-A Cr.PC is the provision which governs the trial of warrant cases instituted on police complaint. At the time of films; the charge sheet the prosecution furnished or caused to be furnished to the accused copies of statements which were in the case diary.In the case diary they were recorded in English. Copies of these statements were given. In the course of the trial when the investigating officer was in the witness box he gave evidence that he recorded statements in tail in a pocket book. It has been pointed out in an earlier judgment of this Court that these statements are really the statements under Section 162 Cr P C, and therefore under Section 173 (...
Tag this Judgment!E. Alfred Vs. the I Additional Income-tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ290
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Ebenezer, the father of the petitioner Alfred, was an income-tax assessee. Ebenezer had income from the money-lending and Abkari businesses that he carried on in addition to income from immovable properties. He adopted the official financial year ending with 31st March, as his year of account. The assessment of his income for the assessment year 1944-45 was completed during his lifetime.2. Ebenezer died intestate on 22nd November, 1945. His heirs and legal representatives were his son and eight daughters, four of whom were minors. Six of the daughters filed O.S. No. 121 of 1948 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, for the administration of the estate of the deceased Ebenezer and for partition of the properties between his nine co-heirs. On 27th October, 1949, the Sub-Court appointed Mr. Lakshmanan, an Advocate, as the receiver of the properties of Ebendzer. The Receiver appears to have taken charge of most of the immovable properties and to have realised the inco...
Tag this Judgment!E. Alfred Vs. First Additional Income-tax Officer, Salem.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1957
Reported in: [1957]32ITR401(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - Ebenezer, the father of the petitioner Alfred, was an income-tax assessee. Ebenezer had income from the money-lending and abkari businesses that he carried on in addition to income from immoveable properties. He adopted the official financial year ending with 31st March, as his year of account. The assessment of his income for the assessment year 1944-45 was completed during his lifetime.Ebenezer died intestate on 22nd November, 1945. His heirs and legal representatives were his son and eight daughters, four of whom were minors. Six of the daughters filed O.S. No. 121 of 1948 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem, for the administration of the estate of the deceased Ebenezer, and for partition of the properties between his nine co-heirs. On 27th October, 1949, the Sub-Court appointed Mr. Lakshman, an advocate, as the receiver of the properties of Ebenezer. The receiver appears to have taken charge of most of the immoveable properties and to have realised the income ther...
Tag this Judgment!G. Bashyam Chetty Vs. A. Govindarajulu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad798; (1957)2MLJ272
1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of Mack, J., affirming the Order of the learned District Judge of Chingleput on an application made by the contesting respondents for setting aside an Order of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, dated 5th August, 1948 and for a declaration that the property constituting the subject-matter of this appeal is a temple within the definition of temple in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The learned District Judge set aside the order of the Board and declared the property to be a public temple. On appeal, Mack, J., confirmed the decision. Hence this appeal by the first respondent to the petition.2. The only question in this appeal is whether the property which is the subject-matter of the appeal, namely, premises No. 37-B, Vilakkadi Koil Street, Little Conjeeveram, Chingleput District, is a temple as defined in Section 9(12) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The following facts emerge out of the evidence adduced by bot...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Kandaswami Gounder and Brothers Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC603(Mad)
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These three appeals have been filed by the firm of Kandaswami Gounder and Brothers (whom we shall refer to as 'assessees'), who have been assessed to sales tax, under Section 12-C of the Madras General Sales Tax Act against the orders of the Board of Revenue passed under Section 12(3) of the said Act. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of these appeals, a matter which we shall consider a little later; and in view of this objection, three civil miscellaneous petitions have been filed to convert these appeals into revisions invoking our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. A few facts are necessary to understand first the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals which we are upholding and also the points that arise for consideration in the revisions under Article 227.3. The assessees (the appellants in these appeals and the petitioners in these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions) K.V. Kandaswami Gounder a...
Tag this Judgment!G. Bashyam Chetty Vs. A. Govindarajulu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ272
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. This is an appeal against the Judgment of Mack, J., affirming the Order of the learned District Judge of Chingleput on an application made by the contesting respondents for setting aside an Order of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, dated 5th August, 1948 and for a declaration that the property constituting the subject-matter of this appeal is a temple within the definition of temple in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The learned District Judge set aside the order of the Board and declared the property to be a public temple. On appeal, Mack, J., confirmed the decision. Hence this appeal by the first respondent to the petition.2. The only question in this appeal is whether the property which is the subject-matter of the appeal, namely, premises No. 37-B, Vilakkadi Koil Street, Little Conjeeveram, Chingleput District, is a temple as defined in Section 9(12) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The following facts emerge out of the eviden...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Kandaswami Gounder and Brothers Vs. the State of Madras Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ295
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. These three appeals have been filed by the firm of Kandaswami Gounder and Brothers (whom we shall refer to as ' assessees ') who have been assessed to sales tax under Section 12-C. of the Madras General Sales Tax Act against the orders of the Board of Revenue passed under Section 12(3) of the said Act. A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of these appeals, a matter which we shall consider a little later; and in view of this objection, three Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to convert these appeals into revisions invoking our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.2. A few facts are necessary to understand first the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals which we are upholding and also the points that arise for consideration in the revisions under Article 227.3. The assessees (the appellants in these appeals and the petitioners in these Civil Miscellaneous Petitions) K. V. Kandaswami Gounder...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Lourduswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad631; 1957CriLJ1148; (1957)2MLJ13
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore, Two persons, i. e., the master and his servant, were prosecuted for selling adulterated buffalo's milk. The master pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The servant, accused 2, was let off on the ground that Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, does not contemplate both the master and the servant to be prosecuted. Section 7 is as follows:'No person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, or store, sell ordistribute (1) any adulterated food..........'According to the interpretation put by the Magistrate, if a person sells himself he can be prosecuted, or if he sells by any person, he can be prosecuted, but not the person through whom he sells. It is not a correct interpretation of the section. This section means that even though he may sell by another person, still the master i...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Ponnappan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1957Mad741; 1957CriLJ1295
Somasundaram, J. 1. This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent herein for an offence under the Food Adulteration Act, Central Act 37 of 1954. The prosecution was launched by the Health Officer, Erode Municipality, for the respondent being in possession of adulterated milk for the purpose of sale. The purchase of the milk for the purpose of test was on 22nd December 1955. The Act under which the respondent was prosecuted came into force on 1st June 1955. Under Section 20 of the Act there shall be no prosecution for an offence under this Act except by or with the written consent of the State Government or a local authority or a person authorised in this behalf by the State Government or a local authority. The local authority is defined under Section 2, Clause (viii) as meaning a municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation, the local area, as found in Sub-clause (1) (a) of Clause (viii) of Section 2. The Health Officer in this case was no doubt a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »