Chennai Court September 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. Solomon Vs. Josephine
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad151
1. The petitioner is the husband. He was married to the respondent in accordance with Christain rites on 18-6-1951 at Mayuram. On 2-1-1957 the husband filed a petition under Section 18 of the Indian Divorce Act for a decree declaring that his marriage with the respondent was null and void on the ground that the respondent was a lunatic and idiot even from prior to the marriage.Under Section 19 of the Act one of the grounds on which a decree of nullity of marriage can be made is that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage. In the petition the petitioner alleged that she was a lunatic even at the time of the marriage and continued to be so. When summons went to the respondent, she did not appear but she sent a communication to the court. Admittedly this communication is signed by the respondent.In this she stated that the allegations contained in the 'petition were false and were made by the husband with the intention of marrying another woman after he was free, ...
V.S.T. Sheik Mansoor Tharaganar and anr. Vs. S.V.S. Sankarapandia Muda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1958
Reported in: (1958)2MLJ568
P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.1. There can be no doubt that there are two decisions of two Division Benches of this Court taking different views on the main question which arises in this appeal. The two decisions are Ramalakshmi v. Gopalakrishna Rao (1944) 2 M.L.J. 285, and Srinivasa Rao v. Abdul Rahim Sahib : AIR1956Mad618 . The learned Judges, in the latter case, were inclined to the view that the decision in the earlier case was considerably shaken by Certain observations in a subsequent Privy Council case. Even if that be so, the proper course would be to refer the question for decision by a Full Bench, and this is referred accordingly.2. The Appeal then came on for hearing in pursuance of the above order of refe rence before the Full Bench {Rajamannar G.J., Ramachandra Iyer and Ganapatia Ptllai, JJ.)3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered byRamachandra Iyer, J.4. This appeal which is directed against the decree in O.S. No. 154 of 1951 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, raises a ...
Mohammed Musa Sahib (Died) and ors. Vs. N.K. Mohammed Ghouse Sahib and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ424
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore, in A.S. No. 391 of 1953, reversing the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsiff, Erode, in O.S. No. 574 of 1951.2. On 18th November, 1939, the plaintiffs' predecessor entered into an agreement with the first defendant styling it as an 'Indenture of Partnership' in the following terms:The indenture is made the 18th day of November, 1939, between K.N. Mohamed Ghouse Sahib of No. 127, Pitt Street, Penang (hereinafter called the first party) of the one part and S.E. Abdul Rahim also of No. 127, Pitt Street, Penang (hereinafter called the second party) of the other part:Whereas the first and second parties were carrying on from the year 1925 up to the 30th day of September, 1939, the business of cattle dealers and skin merchants:And whereas from the 30th day of September, 1939, the said partnership was dissolved by mutual consent on the understanding that the p...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kandasamy Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad333; 1959CriLJ997
Somasundaram, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent who was charged for an offence under the Food Adulteration Act, that is for selling adulterated milk. In such a case the first essential requisite to be established is that the milk from Which the Sanitary Inspector gets a small quantity from the vendor as sample is intended for sale. In the present case the defence is that the accused was taking milk to the coffee-hotel of his brother who was owning cows and buffaloes in his house and that it was only, the milk got from the buffaloes in his house that he was carrying to his brother's hotel and that it was never intended for sale but that when the Sanitary Inspector demanded he could not refuse to give as that would amount to an offence.In support of his case the accused examined his brother as D. W. 1 who spoke to the fact that the milk which was brought by his brother (accused) was that get from the buffaloes which he was having in his house and that it was ...
T.B. Sri Rangi Vs. Asia Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad475
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This second appeal arises from the decree and judgment of the District Judge, Coimbatore, in A, S. No. 465 of 1954 which confirmed the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris at Ootacamund in O. S. No. 193 of 11952. The third defendant in the suit is the appellant. The suit was for partition and delivery of separate possession of the plaintiff's 3/5th share or in the alternative 4/6th share in certain buildings and sites described in the schedules to the plaint.In the present appeal we are concerned only with two of the properties, namely, shops bearing door Nos. 307 and 308. One Kamakshi was the owner of the properties. She had a daughter, Lakshmi, through whom she had a grandson, Rangaswami. On 29-8-1924 Kamakshi executed a will, Ex. A. 48, the construction of which is the point for consideration in the present appeal. Under that document the suit properties were bequeathed to the children of Rangaswami.Kamakshi died on 18-1-1925. On the date of ...
S.S. Subbier and S.R. Narasimachari, Proprietors, Sri Kothandaram Spin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1958
Reported in: (1959)2MLJ78
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the decision of this Court:Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the two partnerships entered into on 23rd June, 1944 and 23rd September, 1944, in respect of the weaving mills and the spinning mills, respectively, constitute one business carried on by the same person within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Excess Profits Tax Act.2. The material facts are these: In December, 1934, two brothers named Ramudu Iyer and Subbier started a weaving mill called Sri Kothandaram Weaving Mills. On 19th January, 1938, a deed of partnership relating to this mill and setting out among other things the proportion in which the profits were to be shared was drawn up and executed by the partners. On 4th September, 1941, this deed of partnership was replaced by a fresh one.3. In January, 1939, ...
Pierce, Leslie and Co. Ltd., Kozhikode Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1960Mad137; (1960)IIMLJ1
Rajagopalan, J.(1) Both the assessee and the Department were aggrieved, each with a part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. On applications presented by them the Tribunal made a consolidated reference under S. 66(1) of the Income-tax Act and submitted three questions for the determination of this court.(2) The questions arose out of the assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51.(3) The second of the question, which is easiest answered, ran:'Whether the dividends of Rs. 36,820 and Rs. 32,603 received in the previous years for assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 from Plantation Companies whose main business was agriculture can be said to include any agricultural income exempt under S. 4(3) of the Income-tax Act.'The issue is no longer res integra and it is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Bacha F. Guzdar v. Commr. of Income-tax Bombay : [1955]27ITR1(SC) . Dividends do not constitute agricultural income. The question is answered in the...
S.S. Subbier and Vs. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad271; [1959]35ITR362(Mad)
Balakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Under Section 68(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, read with Section 21 of the Excess Profits Tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the decision of this Court:'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the two partnerships entered into on 23-6-19441 and 23-9-1944 in respect of the weaving mills and the spinning mills, respectively, constitute one business carried on by the same person within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Excess Profits Tax Act.'2. The material facts are these: In December 1934 two brothers named Ramudu Iyer and Subbier started a weaving mill called Sri Kothandaram Weaving Mills. On 19th January 1938 a deed of partnership relating to this mill and setting out among other things to the proportion in which the profits were to be shared Was drawn up and executed by the partners. On 4th September 1941, this deed of partnership was replaced by a fresh one.3. In January 1939 these two brothers...
Appasamy and Sons Vs. the State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1958
Reported in: [1959]10STC170(Mad)
ORDER1. The turnover, the liability of which to sales tax was in dispute, was Rs. 36,020-10-0 for 1951-52, and Rs. 1,12,147-14-6 for 1952-53. The Tribunal treated the amounts as the turnover of works contracts executed by the assessee, and held that 70 per cent of the turnover was liable to be taxed. The amounts in question represented the charges collected by the assessee for carrying out embroidery work on the material supplied to the assessee by its customers. Such contracts did not involve the sale of any goods of the assessee to the customers. The principles on which the question has to be decided, whether there was any element of sale in a given works contract, have been explained by us in our judgment in T.R.C. Nos. 233 to 236 of 19561, on the application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley2.2. The assessments are set aside, and the petitions are allowed with costs in T.R.C. No. 167 of 1956. Counsel's fee Rs. 100....
Sundaram Motors (Private) Ltd., 37 Mount Road, Madras Vs. the State of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1958
Reported in: AIR1959Mad33; [1958]9STC687(Mad)
1. These tax revision cases are filed under Section 12-B (1). and Rule 13 (c) (1-A) of the Madras General Sales-tax Act. The assessee is the petitioner in all these cases and they relate to assessments in respect of years 1949-50 to 1952-53. Sundaram Motors (Private) Ltd., the assessee, is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and it carries On business in selling and distributing motor vehicles. It also deals in motor parts and accessories and maintains a workshop where reconditioning or repairs of motor vehicles are undertaken. The turnover in the business of the company would therefore relate to the sales department, where the goods are sold, and also the works department, where the vehicles are repaired or reconditioned.In the latter case the turnover would represent not merely the labour charges as such but the cost of spare parts or materials supplied or used in effecting the repairs. There is no controversy in regard-to the turnover in the sales ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »