Chennai Court October 1958 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.
Jayaram Mills Ltd. Vs. the Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ378
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The assessee is a limited liability company which commenced business on 29th April, 1943, as a spinning mill. Some time later the assessee decided to expand its activities and open a weaving department, and, for this purpose purchased in 1944 eighty-one looms and various items of machinery from the Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Mills. On 29th July, 1945, the assessee commenced the construction of buildings to house its weaving department, and, by June, 1946, the work was completed and the machinery installed. But, the weaving section actually commenced to operate only in July, 1947.2. The assessee company was subject to excess profits tax. In computing the average capital of the assessee for the chargeable accounting period between 1st July, 1945 and 31st March, 1946, the Excess Profits Tax Officer excluded the value of the buildings, plant and machinery which related to the weaving department.3. On an appeal by the assessee the Appellate Assistant Commissione...
Jayaram Mills Ltd., Rajapalayam Vs. the Commissioner of Excess Profits ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad376; [1959]35ITR651(Mad)
Balakrishna Ayyar, J. 1. The assessee is a limited liability company which commenced business on 29-4-1943 as a spinning mill. Some lime later the assessee decided to expand its activities and open a weaving department, and, for this purpose purchased in 1944 eighty-one looms and various items of machinery from the Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Mills. On 28-7-1945 the assessee commenced the construction of buildings to house its weaving department, and, by June 1946, the work was completed and the machinery installed. But, the weaving section actually commenced to operate only in July 1947.2. The assessee company was subject to excess profits tax. In computing the average capital of the assessee for the chargeable accounting period between 1-7-1945 and 31-3-1946, the Excess Profits Tax Officer excluded the value of the buildings, plant and machinery which related to the weaving department.3. On an appeal by the assesee the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the amount expende...
H.M. Abdul Rahim Sait Vs. K.V. Kunhalan Kutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ498
Ramaswami, J.1. These are two connected appeals preferred against the decrees and judgment of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore in A.S. Nos. 450 and 451 of 1953, reversing the decrees and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ootacamund in O.S. Nos. 74 of 1951 and 247 of 1952.2. The appellant before us Khan Bahadur H.M. Abdul Rahim Sait was the owner of the Salisbury Estate. There were trees in the jungly and uncultivated area of this estate. The respondent before us K.V. Kunhalan Kutty is a Moplah eking out: this livelihood by purchasing trees, felling them and vending the same. He entered into a contract with this appellant for purchasing 681 trees under Exhibits B-4 and B-5, dated 28th August, 1950 and 21st September, 1950, respectively. On the date of Exhibit B-4 an advance of Rs. 1,000 was paid by the respondent to the appellant. The trees to be purchased were selected by the respondent and his men in the presence of D.W. 1, R.J. Peter, the manager in the employ of t...
Hajee Mohamed Yusif Sahib (M.M.P.) Vs. State of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ268Mad
Rajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner carries on business as a tanner at Dindigul. Tanneries were shown as item 12 in part I of the schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, Act XI of 1948. Under Section 3 of the Act, the State Government was empowered to fix the minimum wages for the workers in tanneries. On 30 August 1951, the Government of Madras issued a notification G.O, No. 3910, fixing the minimum wages payable to several classes of workers in tanneries. I am concerned now only with the minimum wages prescribed for one class of workers, the pieceworkers. What was prescribed as the minimum for that class of workers was 10 annas per unit of work done. The note ran:Quantum of unit will depend on the custom and usage in the largest number of tanneries in the locality for the same or similar kind of work. Nopiece rate workers should be paid less than a guaranteed time rate of 10 annas per day with a minimum cost of living allowance of 11 annas per day.Thus two concepts were involved: a minimum o...
M.M. Hajee Mohamed Yusuf Sahib Vs. State of Madras, by Secretary, Indu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ132
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner carries on business as a tanner at Dindigul. Tanneries were shown as item 12 in Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act (XI of 1948). Under Section 3 of the Act the State Government was empowered to fix the minimum wages for the workers in tanneries. On 30th August, 1951, the Government of Madras issued a notification, G.O. 3910, fixing the minimum wages payable to several classes of workers in tanneries. I am concerned now only with the minimum wages prescribed for one class of workers, the piece-workers. What was prescribed as the minimum for that class of workers was ten annas per unit of work done. The note ran:Quantum of unit will depend on the custom and usage in the largest number of tanneries in the locality for the same or similar kind of work. No piece-rate workers should be paid less than a guaranteed time rate of 10 annas per day with a minimum cost of living allowance of 11 annas per day. Thus two concepts were involved : a min...
The Indian Drugs Co. Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: [1959]10STC322(Mad)
Ramaswami, J.1.In regard to an assessment under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the appellant challenged the transaction by means of a suit on the ground that it was bad and that it offended Article 286(2) of the Constitution, and Section 22 of the General Sales Tax Act, which incorporates Article 286(2) of the Constitution. This contention was upheld by the trial court and on the ground that the assessment was bad on the foot just now mentioned, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.2. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the trial court that the assessment was bad for the reason mentioned but held that the suit is not maintainable by reason of Section 18-A of the General Sales Tax Act. That section provides:-No suit or other proceeding shall, except as expressly provided in this Act, be instituted in any court to set aside or modify any assessment made under this Act.The defeated assessee appeals.This appeal has got to be dismissed for two reasons.3. First of all ...
Sridharan Motor Service Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: (1959)ILLJ380Mad
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the management of Sridharan Motor Service, Attur, in Salem district, for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, dated 24 December 1957, and made in Petition No. 5 of 1957 in I.D. No. 10 of 1957.2. The relevant facts are these. On 15 February 1957 the management of Sridharan Motor Service and the workers in that service submitted a Joint petition to the Government of Madras asking that various matters mentioned in the petition be referred to adjudication. On 20 May 1957 the Government passed an order referring those questions for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras. On 31 May 1957, the management revised their time-tables in such a manner that it prejudicially affected the workers in various ways. The position that resulted is thus summarized in the order of the industrial tribunal:It will be seen from the list that in the case of some of the workers, while the working hours per da...
S. Kandaswami Vs. S.B. Adityan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ420
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the order of the Election Tribunal, Tirunelveli, in I.A. No. 4 of 1958 in Election Petition No. 98 of 1957. That order directed a striking out of paragraphs IV-A to IV-E of the election petition, except in regard to two instances of the several corrupt practices alleged.2. Election Petition No. 98 of 1957 was filed under the Representation of the People Act of 1951(which will be hereafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that the election of the respondent, S.B. Adityan to the Madras State Assembly from the Satankulam constituency in Tirunelveli district was void. The election to that constituency was held on 4th March, 1957 and 6th March, 1957. The petitioner and the respondent were two amongst the four candidates, who contested the election. The respondent was declared elected by a majority of about 11,207 votes over his nearest rival the petitioner. On 15th April, 1957, the petit...
S. Kandaswami Vs. S.B. Adityan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad288
1. This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the order of the Election Tribunal, Tirmelveli, in I. A. No. 4 of 1958 in Election Petition No. 98 of 1957. That order directed a striking out of paragraphs IV-A to IV-E of the election petition, except in regard to two instances of the several corrupt practices alleged.2. Election petition No. 98 of 1957 was filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (which will be hereafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that the election of the respondent, S. B. Adityan to the Madras State Assembly from the Satankulam constituency in Tirunelveli District was void. The election to that constituency was held on 4-3-1957 and 6-3-1957. The petitioner and the respondent were two amongst the four candidates, who contested the election. The respondent was declared elected by a majority of about 11,2071 votes over his nearest rival the petitioner. On 15-4-1957 the petitioner filed the election petition referre...
P.N. Venkatasubramania Ayyar Vs. K.V. Srinivasa Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad445; (1959)2MLJ173a
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on the Original Side of this court -- C. S. No. 62 of 1949 -- for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,402-5-0, as balance of the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 28-1-1946, executed by the defendant, K. V. Srinivasa Ayyangar in favour of P. S. Narayana Iyer, the plaintiff who originally filed the suit. P. S. Narayana Iyer died pendente lite and plaintiffs 2 to 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives.The promissory note was for a sum of Rs. 10,600 and provided for interest at 12 per cent per annum. The defendant in his written statement did not deny the execution of the suit promissory note but pleaded that he was entitled to the benefits conferred by the Madras Act IV of 1938 as amended by Madras Act XXIII of 1948. The plea of the defendant was based on the following allegation, namely, that the suit promissory note was only a renewal of successive earlier promissory notes executed by him each in renewal of a prev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »