Chennai Court March 1958 Judgments
S.K. Azimudeen Sahib Vs. K.V. Rangaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ389
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of premises in Bazaar Street, Salem Town, in which two shops bearing Nos. 368 and 369 are located. These two shops are in the possession of the respondent. The petitioner sought to evict the respondent from the premises on the ground that he wanted them to carry on a business, of his own. The accommodation controller dismissed the application. The appeal, which the petitioner filed before the Subordinate Judge and the revision petition which he filed before the District Judge both failed. He has therefore come to this Court.2. The petitioner stated that he wanted the premises in order that he might trade in mill cloth in Salem. He also stated that he has obtained a licence for the purpose from the appropriate authorities. The case of the respondent was that the petitioner was not carrying on any business and that his application was not bona fide, since he had alternative accommodation in another part of the building, access to which ...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Sundararaja Iyer and ors. Vs. Kanakaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ374
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal at the instance of the mortgagors is directed against the judgment of Mack, J., in C.M.A. No. 502 of 1951, which arose out of proceedings instituted by the appellants for a declaration of the amount due under an usufructuary mortgage after applying the provisions of Section 9-A of Madras Act IV of 1938. The father of the appellants 1 and 3 had executed an usufructuary mortgage on 25th April, 1924, for Rs. 7,499 in favour of one Mohideen Meeraganni Rowther. After he death of the mortgagee his heirs transferred on 13th August, 1935, their rights, under the mortgage, to one Alagannan Chettiar for a consideration Rs. 5,500. The respresentatives of the assignee-mortgagee and the respondent who claimed rights to the mortgage were impleaded as parties and it was claimed that only a sum of Rs. 917 would be due in respect of the usufructuary mortgage. The representatives of Alagannan Chettiar disclaimed all interest in the mortgage stating' that the mortgage a...
Tag this Judgment!State of Madras by the Secretary, Development Deparment Vs. K.N. Padma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ266
Rajamannar, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Govinda Menon, j., disposing of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by one K.N. Padmanabha Iyer in the following circumstances. The joint family to which the said Padmanabha Iyer belonged was running a hotel called Lakshmi Cafe at 311, Mint Street, George Town, Madras. On behalf of the workers of the said cafe the Madras City Hotel Workers Association put up a number of demands to the management relating to wages, dearness allowance, holidays, leave facilities, bonus, gratuity, provision of room for taking tiffin, etc. There were attempts at reconciliation by the Labour Officer; but the attempts did not succeed. On 2nd May, 1952, the proprietor of the cafe addressed the Labour Officer that owing to a slump in the business and high cost of foodstuffs, the business was running at a loss. There was also considerable trouble from the workers and therefore he had decided to close down the cafe section of the...
Tag this Judgment!Visalakshi Achi Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ397
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The question referred for our decision, is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum of Rs. 12,258-66 received by the assessee is income chargeable under the Income-tax Act.2. Relevant Facts Are These: The assessee owns an estate called Lakshmi Gardens in Ceylon. This estate is worked as one unit along with another estate called Mallawaritiya Estate. Both the estates were taken over by the Military Authorities and were in their occupation between June, 1942 and September, 1946. After the Military Authorities surrendered possession to the assessee, she sent in a claim for damages amounting to Rs. 23,673-15-0. The claim of the assessee was ventually settled by the Military Authorities by payment to her of a sum of Rs. 12,258-66. The Income-tax Authorities treated this amount as income and charged tax on it. The appeal to the Assistant Commissioner failed. A further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal proved equally unsuccessful. F...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnamuthu Ambalam Vs. S. Jagannatha Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad89; 1959CriLJ328; (1959)1MLJ135
Ramaswami, J. 1. This second appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate; Judge of Tanjore in A. S. No. 189 of 1954, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Tanjore in O. S. No. 193 of 1953.2. In 1950 the District of Tanjore and especially the area of the Sub-Divisional Magistracy of Pattukottai was the seat of continuous trouble between the landlords and the Kisans. This Kisan movement was being fully exploited by the Communists and their fellow travellers on the foot that every trouble was welcome for fomenting agitations against the Government and for promoting forces of disorder and violence.The net result was that the Government took stringent measures to restrain the activities of these Communists. Special Police officers were posted and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pattukottai, directed all the Taluk Magistrates of Pattukottai and Arantangi to promulgate prohibitory orders under Section 144, Cr. P.O. in all the vil...
Tag this Judgment!Visalakshi Achi Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad586; [1958]34ITR363(Mad)
BALAKRISHNA AYYAR, J. - The question referred for our decision is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the sum, of Rs. 12,258-6-6 received by the assessee is income chargeable under the Income-tax Act.The relevant facts are these : The assessee owns an estate called Lakshmi Gardens in Ceylon. This estate is worked as one unit along with another estate called Mallewanitiva Estate. Both the estates were taken over by the military authorities and were in their occupation between June, 1942, and September, 1946. After the military authorities surrendered possession to the assessee, she sent in a claim for damages amounting to Rs. 23,673-15-0. This claim of the assessee was eventually settled by the military authorities by payment to her of a sum of Rs. 12,258-6-6. The Income-tax authorities treated this amount as income and charged tax on it. The appeal to the Assistant Commissioner failed. A further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal proved equally unsucces...
Tag this Judgment!N.T. Patel and Co. Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ257
Rajagopalan, J.1. The assessee firm consisting of six partners was constituted by the deed of partnership, dated 29th March, 1954, which came into effect from 1st April, 1954. The specific provision in the earlier deeds of partnership for the division of profits in proportion to the capital contributed by each of the partners was unfortunately omitted to be included in the deed, dated 29th March, 1954. This omission was noticed in the course of the proceeding before the Income-tax Officer, when the firm applied for registration under Section 26-A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1955-1956. The year of account had ended on 31st March, 1955. On 17th September, 1955, the partners executed another document, which was supplemental to the deed of partnership, dated 29th March, 1954, and which provided:The parties hereto agree to rectify that error though the same subject-matter is clear from Clauses 11, 34 and 41-A of the deed, dated 29th March, 1954. We hereby agree that for pu...
Tag this Judgment!A.S. Sivan Pillai Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ434
Rajagopalan, J.1. The question referred to this Court wasWhether on the facts and circumstances of this case, there is any material to support the estimate of the excess receipt of Rs. 42,000 by the assessee on the sale of onions?2. The assessee had his headquarters at Tuticorin. He had a branch at Colombo in Ceylon. The assessee used to export onions of his own to his branch at Colombo for sale there. The assessee also used to export onions belonging to others for sale at his Colombo branch on a commission basis. One of those for whom he exported onions in the year of account was his son-in-law, Sethuramalingam Pillai, who had his shop in Tinnevelly and who traded under the Vilasam of V.A.S. Arumugham Chettiar and Sons.3. During the year of account, the assessee sold to the Ceylon Government through his branch at Colombo 4699 cwts. of onion. That these were sold at the controlled rates was not in dispute. During the year of account the assessee also sold in the open market 3746 cwts. ...
Tag this Judgment!C.M. Kothari Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ399
Rajagopalan, J.1. The two questions that are referred to this Court under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act were:(1) Whether there was material for the Appellate Tribunal to hold that the income arising to Mrs. C.M. Kothari and Mrs. D.C. Kothari from the property arose indirectly out of the assets transferred indirectly by their husbands so as to attract the provisions of Section 16 (3)(a)(iii)?(2) Whether the aforesaid dividend income is agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1) and consequently. exempt?2. The expression 'aforesaid' in question No. 2 has obviously no relation to the income referred to in question No. 1. It may not be necessary to set out the relevant facts to answer the second of the questions. The law on the subject has been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. Cammissioner of Income-tax : [1955]27ITR1(SC) , and the question is answered in the negative and against the assessee.3. To answer the first question the follo...
Tag this Judgment!N. T. Patel and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR198(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - The assessee firm consisting of six partners was constituted by the deed of partnership dated March 29, 1954, which came into effect from April 1, 1954. The specific provision in the earlier deeds of partnership for the division of profits in proportion to the capital contributed by each of the partners was unfortunately omitted to be included in the deed dated March 29, 1954. This omission was noticed in the course of the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer, when the firm applied for registration under section 26A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1955-56. The year of account had ended on March 31, 1955. On September 17, 1955, the partners executed another document, which was supplemental to the deed of partnership dated March 29, 1954, and which provided : 'the parties hereto agree to rectify that error though the same subject matter is clear from clauses 11, 34 and 41-A of the deed, dated March 29, 1954. We hereby agree that for purposes of clarif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »