Chennai Court September 1957 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.
Vishnukantham Chetty Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1957
Reported in: [1958]34ITR678(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - The assessee was the Hindu undivided family which consisted of Virupaksha Chettiar and his two sons, Gopal Padmanabha and Vishnukantham. The vilasam adopted for the photographic business was that of the younger son, Vishnukantham, but it was managed by the elder son Gopal Padmanabha. The father does not appear to have had anything to do with the business, though admittedly the family was undivided. the Department and the Tribunal declined to accept the plea of Gopala Padmanabha, that the father carried on a brokers business on his own; but it was apparently not the case of any one that the father in any way participated in the business carried on by the sons. Virupaksha died in August, 1946. On 11th October, 1944, one Singaravelu executed a deed of mortgage for Rs. 7,750 in favour of Virupaksha. Rs. 5,000 was realised on 8th August, 1947; and this was shown as a credit in the capital account of the business.In proceedings under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, the Dep...
P. Sheik Batcha Rowther and ors. Vs. N.R. Alagappan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1957
Reported in: AIR1959Mad12; (1958)IIMLJ157
Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the decree and Judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Madurai in A. S. No. 67 of 1956 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Melur in O. S. No. 27 of 1955. The respondent has filed a Memorandum of Cross Objections.2. The facts of the case can be easily followed if we take on hand the Commissioner's plan annexed to this judgment for reference.3. The plaintiff is the owner of R. S. Nos. 75/4 and 77/2 in the village of Uluppakudi. The defendants are the owners of R. S. 76/2. It will be seen that these two lands are separated only by a ridge. On the border between the plaintiff's and defendants' lands there are sixteen tamarind trees of varying age, the oldest of them being about 60 years old. There has been a recent change of hands in regard to the plaintiffs land. On the plaintiff becoming the owner four years ago he found that nine of the sixteen trees are constituting an unmitigated nu...
In Re: R.P. Ramudu Iyer and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1957
Reported in: [1957]8STC805(Mad)
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The petitioners in this case have preferred this revision against the order of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Madurai, in Summary Trial Case No. 93 of 1955. The respondent herein had instituted a prosecution under Rule 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax rules against the petitioners, who are dealers in cotton yarn in Madurai town. For the year 1954-55, the petitioners had taken out a cotton yarn licence No. 1073. Their turnover for that year was in the sum of Rs. 53,369-8-0 as could be seen from Ex. B-1. Under Rule 5 of the Madras General Sales Tax rules the petitioners should have applied for and taken out a licence for the year 1955-56 for enabling them to trade in cotton yarn. They did not do so. Under the then rules they should have filed the application before the 3oth September, 1955. But actually the petitioners submitted the application on the 22nd November, 1955, after they had been called upon to do so by the General Sales Tax d...
R.P. Ramudu Iyer and Sons and anr. Vs. State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1957
Reported in: 1958CriLJ643
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. The petitioners in this case have preferred this revision against the order of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Madurai, to Summary Trial Case No. 93 of 1955. The respondent herein had instituted a prosecution under Rule 32 of the Madras General Sales-tax Rules assents the petitioners, who are dealers in cotton yarn in Madurai Town. For the year 1954-55( the petitioners had taken out a cotton yarn-licence No. 1073. Their turnover for that year was in the sum of Rs. 53,369-8-0 as could be seen from Ex. B. 1.Under Rule 5 of the Madras General Sales-tax Rules the petitioners should have applied for and taken out a licence for the year 1955-56 for enabling them to trade in cotton yarn. They did not do so. Under the then rules they should have filed the application before the 30th September 1955. But actually the petitioners submitted the application on the 22nd November, 1955 after they had been called upon to do so by the General Sales-tax departme...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. R. Karuppian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad143; 1958CriLJ527; (1958)IMLJ20
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal against the .acquittal of the second appellant (accused 3) by the Sessions Judge of West Tanjore in C. A. No. 290 of 1956 on his file.2. The Co-operative Milk Supply Society at Papanasam was prosecuted along with two other accused for adulteration of milk an offence punishable under Section 16 (1) of the Central Act 37 of 1954. There is no doubt about the fact that the milk sold was adulterated. This fact is not disputed even by the learned Counsel for the respondent here. Accused 2 was the actual vendor of the milk and he was convicted by the trial court and his conviction has been upheld by the Sessions Judge.The Co-operative Society represented by the Secretary was also convicted and the Secretary himself (accused 3) was convicted by the trial court. On appeal the Sessions Judge confirmed :the conviction of the Co-operative Society but acquitted accused 3, the Secretary, on the ground that he was in charge only as secretary of accused 1 Society a...
Padmavathi Vs. Srimad Ananteswarar Temple Represented by the Trustees, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad185; (1958)1MLJ197
Ganapatia Pillai, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decree and Judgment of Mack, J., which set aside the order of remand of the District Judge of South Kanara and restored the Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of that place. The suit out of which this appeal arises was laid by the present appellant for recovery of unpaid purchase money due under the sale Exhibit A-2 of the year 1916. This sale deed dealt with property belonging to the appellant's family and the total price due under the deed was Rs. 28,000. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 3,000 was retained by the vendee, one D'Souza, to meet the liability due under the indemnity bond Exhibit B-1. This indemnity bond was given by Ananthayya Konde, one of the vendors, in regard to a litigation which releated to another property in O.S. No. 226 of 1912. The anticipated loss related to the possibility of three minor children of Ananthayya Konde abovementioned instituting suits with reference to the properties invol...
A. Periakaruppan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Natarajan Chettiar Alias Chinna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ610
Ramaswami, J.1. This second appeal is preferred against the Decree and Judgment of the learned District Judge of Madurai in A.S. No. 116 of 1952, practically confirming the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madurai in O.S. No. 182 of 1949.2. The facts are : The parties in this case belong to a small community known as Athangudi Chettiars who live in seven villages, viz., Navinipatti, Vellalapatti, Kottakudi, Keelur, Attapatti, Eriyoor and Mellakottai. They also appear to be known by the name of Elur Chettiars. One of the pretensions put forward was that these Athankudi Chettiars are a sub-sect of NattukottaiChettiars but this has not been persisted in. In regard to these Athankudi Chettiars, in O.S. No. 436 of 1927, District Munsif's Court, Melur, a custom was set up that amongst them if a male who is divided from his coparceners dies without leaving a male issue, his pangalis, i.e., agnates will get his properties to the exclusion of the widow or daughters of the...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Rathnam Pillai (T.A.)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ257Mad
Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, West Tanjore Division, Tanjore, setting aside the conviction of the respondent, accused under Rules 3 and 6 of the rules framed under the Madras Factories Act. The accused has been running a factory known as Swami Motor Transport, Ltd., and he has been having a workshop therein. In the workshop he has been building bodies for buses and repairing automobiles and in connexion therewith he was also having welding and smithy work, etc. The accused reconstructed his building without conforming to the rules. He put a low roof in the premises of the factory and for this he should have obtained the previous permission in writing from the State Government or the Chief Inspector of Factories by submitting the necessary plans and estimates. He also failed to obtain the permission in writing from the State Government or the Chief Inspector of Factories for the extension of the factory, namely, the installati...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. T.A. Rathnam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad155; 1958CriLJ524; (1958)IIMLJ43
Basheeb Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, West Tanjore division, Tanjore, setting aside the conviction of the respondent-accused, under Rs. 3 and 6 of the Rules framed under the Madras Factories Act. The accused has been running a factory known as Swami Motor Transport Ltd. and he has been having a workshop therein. In the workshop he has been building bodies for buses and repairing automobiles and in connection therewith he was also having welding and smithy work etc. The accused reconstructed his building without conforming to the rules.He put a low roof in the premises of the factory and for this he should have obtained the previous permission in writing from the State Government or the Chief Inspector of Factories ' toy submitting the necessary plans and estimates. He also failed to obtain the permission in writing from the State Government or the Chief Inspector of Factories for the extension of the factory, namely, the installation...
C.M. George, Partner of Cherian Bros. (Now Dissolved) Vs. Income-tax O ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ90
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The Petitioner was liable to be assessed to excess profits tax for the chargeable accounting periods 1st April, 1944, to 31st March, 1945 and 1st April, 1945, to 31st March, 1946. On 31st December, 1951, the Excess Profits Tax Officer completed his assessment and levied a tax of Rs. 29,149-5-0 and Rs. 83,580 respectively for the two chargeable accounting periods. Demand notices under Section 29 of the Income-tax Act were issued to the assessee on 30th April, 1952.2. The assessee preferred appeals against these assessments. Independently of the appeals, however, the Commissioner exercised his revisional jurisdiction and reduced the tax liability of the petitioner by the order dated 7th January, 1954. The tax payable by the assessee with reference to the accounting period 1944-45 was reduced to Rs. 15,513-5-0 and that for 1945-46 was reduced to Rs. 31,716-0-0. The total of the taxes due from the assessee thus came to Rs. 47,229-5-0.3. On 13th March, 1953, the Exces...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »