Chennai Court March 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.
C. M. Kothari Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR317(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - 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 ?'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. Commissioner of Income-tax, and the question is answered in the negative and against the assessee.To answer the first question the following relevant facts ha...
A. S. Sivan Pillai Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: [1958]34ITR328(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN J. - The question referred to this court was :'Whether 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.'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.During the year of account, the assessee sold to the Ceylon Government through his branch at Colombo 4,699 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 3,746 cwts...
Public Prosecutor Vs. P.N. Palaniswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad362; 1959CriLJ1002; (1958)IILLJ335Mad
Somasundaram, J.1. Crl. Ap. No. 661 of 1957: This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the respondent by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, in C. C. No. 185 of 1957.2. The respondent, was prosecuted for an offence under Section 6 of the Factories Act read with Section 92 and Rule 5 (3) of the Madras Factories Rules, 1950. The case is that the respondent, who is the proprietor of a rice mill, was carrying on the business of the rice mill, viz., the manufacturing process of boiling, drying and hulling of paddy in the premises without a licence granted by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Madras, as required by the rules. A rice mill becomes a factory within the definition of that expression in the Act if he employes 10 or more persons for working on any day.It is alleged that on 20-3-1957 the Additional Inspector of Factories, Erode 1 Circle, inspected the factory and fund 17 workers engaged in the business of manufacturing process of boiling, drying and hulling of paddy...
R. Sambandam Pillai Vs. State of Madras, by Commissioner, Hindu Religi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ445
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. The appellant before us was granted a lease of certain lands belonging to the Tirukkadayur Devasthanam by the Pandarasannadhi of Dharma-puram who is its hereditary trustee. The lease was for a period of five years from fasli 1363. Under Rule 10 of the rules framed under Section 100(2)(m) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, all leases stipulating an annual rental of Rs. 500 or more or its equivalent in paddy or other produce shall be reported to the Commissioner who shall have power to veto such leases. If within one month from the date of receipt of the report by the Commissioner, no order vetoing or cancelling the lease is received, the lease shall be deemed to have been approved. The lease was reported to the Commissioner on 17th August, 1953. On 17th September, 1953, a telegram was despatched by the. Commissioner to the trustee-matathipathi purporting to veto the lease and advising the grant of the lease to cultivators after obtaining...
In Re: Raju Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad118; 1959CriLJ336; (1958)2MLJ194
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This is a criminal revision against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for an offence under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, (Act 37 of 1954). There is no doubt that the milk which the accused (petitioner) was carrying in his can contained 23 per cent., of added water as certified by the Analyst in his report, Ex. P. 3, and therefore, it is adulterated milk. He was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and also to a fine of Rs. 2000.In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the term of imprisonment to one year but maintained tho fine of Rs. 2000. This punishment is given because he was once before convicted of a similar offence. Under Section 16(g)(ii) for a second offence the punishment shall be imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and also fine and under the proviso to that section the minimum punishment shall not be less tha...
Swamiappa Mudaliar Vs. K.R. Ponnammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad107; 1959CriLJ482; (1958)2MLJ182
ORDERSomasundaram, J. 1. This is a revision against an order of the Rent Controller refusing to file a complaint under Section 476 Crl. P. C. in respect of a receipt filed before his court. In the application by the respondent to evict the petitioner herein two grounds were urged: (i) arrears of rent, and (ii) sub-letting. On the ground of sub-letting the petitioner was evicted. The Rent Controller also gave a finding that there was a default in payment of rent.With regard to this default in payment of rent, the counterfoil of the receipt book produced by the respondent is alleged to contain sane alterations on which the tenant, who has been evicted, seeks to prosecute the landlord. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that it was not expedient in the interests of justice to lay a complaint. An appeal was then preferred to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court also dismissed the appeal. The present revision is against that order of the Sessions Court.2. The lear...
S. Gopalan Vs. State of Madras Represented by the Collector of Tiruchi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: AIR1958Mad539; (1958)2MLJ117
Ramachandra Ayyar, J.1. This is a case withdrawn by this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution from the file of the District Munsif's Court, Karur, where it was registered as O.S. No. 267 of 1956 as it involved a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Article 265 of the Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the suit.2. The petitioner is a ryotwari pattadar of certain wet and dry lands covered by patta Nos. 96 and 623 in Krishnarayapuram village, Kulitalai taluk, Tiruchira-palli district. He filed O.S. No. 267 of 1956 in the Court of District Munsif, Karur, against the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Tiruchirapalli, the respondent herein, praying for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24-12-0 collected from him as land revenue fox fasli 1365, as such levy and collection of the tax was illegal and unconstitutional by reason of Article 265 of the Constitution of India which provides that no tax shall be levied except by a...
Mahaboo Bivi Ammal Vs. A.M.M. Abdul Hameed and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ225
Ramaswami, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned District Judge, East Tanjore at Nagapattinam, in C.M.A. No. 7 of 1957 reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif in O.S. No. 278 of 1956.2. The dispute in the case relates to a trust property called Ponnammal samadhi trust and the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession of the plaint-mentioned properties with past mesne profits and future mesne profits against the first defendant that he is entitled to act as trustee of the trust. The contention of the first defendant, among other things, was that the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District Munsif. The learned District Munsif upheld this contention and directed the presentation of the plaint to the proper Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. In appeal the learned District Judge came to an opposite conclusion, viz., that the value of the subject-matter of the suit was within the pecuniary ...
M.A. Muthiah Chettiar Vs. Sa Ganesan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ237
ORDER1. These applications, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of writs of certiorari and prohibition, arose out of proceedings in Election Petition No. 86 of 1957, which had been filed by Sa Ganesan to avoid the election of the returned candidate, Muthiah Chettiar, from the Karaikudi Constituency of the Madras Legislative Assembly. It should be convenient to refer to-Muthiah Chettiar and Sa Ganesan respectively as the returned candidate and election petitioner in the rest of this judgment.2. When the returned candidate had occasion at an earlier stage of the proceedings before the Election Tribunal to challenge the validity of another of the interlocutory orders of the Tribunal by applications preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution - the judgment of this Court has been reported in M.A. Muthiah Chettiar v. Sa Ganesan : (1958)1MLJ110 , this Court observed at page 123:.Issue I...raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to continue the en...
Syed Mahomed Ali Vs. M.R. Sundaramurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ259
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This appeal filed at the instance of Syed Mahomed Ali, a shareholder, arises from the judgment of Subrahmanyam, J., in O.P. No. 159 of 1956 giving certain directions under Sections 397 and 398 of the Indian Companies Act. That petition was filed by Sundaramurthy the first respondent supported by 42 shareholders of the Neptune Studios, Ltd., complaining of several prejudicial acts and breaches of trust on the part of respondents 2 to 8, the directors, alleging oppression of the minority by them and praying for regulating the conduct of the company's affairs in future. Neptune Studios, Ltd., which will hereafter be referred to as 'the company' is a public limited company with a subscribed share-capital of Rs. 3,15,000 consisting of 6,150 shares, 4,000 founder-shares of Rs. 25 each and 2,150 ordinary shares of Rs. 100 each. The company owns a studio and an equipment for the production of cinematograph pictures. The company hires out the premises and the equipment an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »