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.
M.G. Mukundaraja Ayyangar Vs. State of Madras by Collector of Ramanath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ322
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. In this application for the issue of a writ of mandamus the petitioner prays for the issue of directions injuncting the respondents from taking proceedings under the provisions of Act XXVI of 1948 with regard to the village of Veyinipatti alias Rayinipatti. The petitioner is the owner of this village which was granted on a permanent cowle by the then Zamindarini of Sivaganga to two individuals. There , were successive devolutions in the title to this village, the petitioner being the last of such purchasers.2. The complications which have led to the present petition have been due to the misunderstanding on the part of the State Government in regard to the tenure of this village. After the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948, was passed and was brought into force the Government published a Notification on nth August, 1949, notifying inter alia the zamindari estate of Sivaganga. The text of this Notification ran:In exercise of t...
M. Subbaraja Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ431
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The order of the Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, revising the assessment of the petitioner under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act is challenged in this petition as beyond the jurisdiction and power of the Officer.2. The proceedings are concerned with the assessment year 1953-54. The petitioner who is the assessee was a non-resident and he was residing at Penang. For the assessment year in question the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment and issued an order on 31st December, 1953, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 27,560 and treating the assessee as a non-resident. Section 17(1) of the Act provides for the determination of the tax payable in certain cases including that by individuals not resident in the taxable territories. The tax payable by a non-resident assessee is under this section computed on the basis of the maximum rate applicable to his total income liable to tax. The assessee is, however, given an option by the first prov...
Rm. Al. St. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. the Fourth Additional Income-tax Of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad537; (1958)2MLJ113
ORDERRajagopala Ayyangar, J.1. The legality of an order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to rectify an assessment order passed by him in 1952 is the subject-matter of this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash this order of refusal.2. The assessee is an undivided Hindu family and was represented before the assessing authorities by Annamalai Chettiar who was the kartha of the family. For the assessment year 1951-52, the account year being that ended 13th April, 1951, the asessee filed a return claiming that the joint Hindu family was 'resident but not ordinarily resident' and was, therefore, taxable on remittances. The assessee's return disclosed a loss in its money-lending business in India but there were profits from its business in Malaya which were transmitted to India. On the basis of these remittances the assessee was taxed and the net tax due was ascertained at Rs. 4,151-4-0 in the year of assessment by an order passed on 31st January, 1952. The Income-tax Off...
Rm. Al. St. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Iv Addl. Income-tax Officer, Karaik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: [1958]34ITR88(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - The legality of an order of the Income-tax Officer refusing to rectify an assessment order passed by him in 1952 is the subject matter of this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash this order of refusal.The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and was represented before the assessing authorities by Annamalai Chettiar who was the Karta of the family. For the assessment year 1951-52, the account year being that ended April 13, 1951, the assessee filed a return claiming that the Joint Hindu family was 'resident but not ordinarily resident' and was, therefore, taxable on remittances. The assessees return disclosed a loss in its money-lending business in India but there were profits from its business in Malays which were transmitted to India. On the basis of these remittances the assessee was taxed and the net tax due was ascertained at Rs. 4,151-4-0 in the year of assessment by an order passed on January 31, 1952. The Income-tax Officer stated 't...
C. M. George Vs. Income-tax Officer, Madras, and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR22(Mad)
ORDERThe 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.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.On 13th March, 1953, the Excess Profits Tax Officer i...
M. Subbaraja Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, and Anot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1957
Reported in: [1958]33ITR228(Mad)
RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. - The order of the Income-tax Officer, Cuddalore, revising the assessment of the petition under section 35 of the Income-tax Act is challenged in this petition as beyond the jurisdiction and power of the officer.The proceedings are concerned with the assessment year 1953-54. The petitioner who is the assessee was anon-resident and he was residing at Penang. For the assessment year in question the Income-tax Officer completed the assessment and issued an order on 31st December, 1953, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 27,560 and treating the assessee as a non-resident. Section 17(1) of the Act provides for the determination of the tax payable in certain cases including that by individuals not resident in the taxable territories. The tax payable by a non-resident assessee is under this section computed on the basis of the maximum rate applicable to his total income liable to tax. The assessee is, however, given an option by the first proviso to sect...
Srinivasa Perumal Naicker Vs. Thayammal Alias Mangammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1957
Reported in: (1958)1MLJ210
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. These are two petitions filed by one Srinivasa Perumal Naicker, for revising and setting aside the orders of the District Judge, Ramanathapuram, dismissing his applications for staying the trial of O.S. Nos. 138 and 158 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sattur, filed by his wife against him, one for her own maintenance and the other for maintenance of her minor children. The ground given by him was that he had filed a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act in the District Court, Ramanathapuram, for the custody of the minor children, whose maintenance had been asked for in one suit, and he had filed another petition in the District Court, Ramanathapuram, for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, who was claiming maintenance against him in the other suit. The learned District Judge considered the grounds urged by him to be totally inadequate for staying the earlier maintenance suits and dismissed his petitions. Hence these Civil R...
B. Hariharamuthu Pillai and ors. Vs. Rama Subbalakshmi Nachiar Avl. an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1957
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ599
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. Common questions of law arise in these second appeals which arise out of suits filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram by the respondent for arrears of rent alleged to be due from the appellants in respect of lands belonging to kattalais attached to several temples in the Urkad Zamindari. The respondent who is the Zamindarini is the hereditary trustee of these kattalais attached to the temples. The appellants admittedly are in possession of the properties concerned in the several suits as cultivating tenants. Several pleas were raised in defence. But it is sufficient for the purpose of these appeals to mention only two of these pleas, namely, (1) that the zamindarini was not competent to maintain the suits because the Urkad zamindari had been notified and taken over by the Government under Madras Act (XXVI of 1948) and (2) that in any event the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Madras Act (XXX of 1947) and the plaintiff is not entitled ...
Nanjan Vs. Selai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Mad383; (1957)2MLJ601
Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition filed by one Nanjan, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 127 of 1948, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Ootacamund, for revising and setting aside the Order of the Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, dated 11th August, 1956, in A.S. No. 320 of 1951, directing the respondents-defendants to file their additional written statements on or before 16th August, 1956, and the petitioner-appellant to file his reply thereto on or before 24th August, 1956 and posting the appeal to 27th August, 1956, for framing of further issues.2. I have perused the records and heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. P. S. Ramachandran, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, rightly urged that a Court should not direct suo motu the amendment of the pleadings like the filing of such additional written statements by the respondents in an appeal, however necessary they may be in the interest of justice, but should wait till the respondents in the appeal file an appli...
Pakkiriswami Pillai Vs. the Municipal Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1957
Reported in: (1958)IMLJ87
ORDERBasheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.1. This revision petition is by accused 2 who has been found guilty under Section 270 of the District Municipalities Act and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to simple imprisonment for one week, by the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Tanjore, in O. C. No. 2 of 1956. The charge against the petitioner was that he along with accused 1, who is not before me, was running a lorry-stand In T. S. No. 2985/P of Ward 6 of Tanjore Municipality without a licence and had therefore committed an offence punishable under Section 270 of the District Municipalities Act.2. The owner of the land is accused 1 who has been acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence that he had used his land as a stand for parking lorries. It has not been proved that he had leased out this land to accused 2, the petitioner before me, for such a purpose. Nor has it been proved by any evidence that the petitioner had any control over the use of this land, either...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »