Chennai Court October 1959 Judgments
Home Cases Chennai 1959 Page 2 of about 38 results (0.012 seconds)The State of Madras, by Collector Vs. K.M.S. Muhammad Ismail Rowther a ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ148
1. This is an appeal by defendant 1 (The State of Madras represented by the District Collector of Ramanathapuram at Madurai) in a suit filed by the plaintiffs in the Court below (the landholders) for a declaration that Madras Act XXX of 1947 could not apply to the suit village, Therku Kottagudi. The plaintiffs below pleaded that the suit village was granted as Dharmasanam inam to their ancestors, as a hereditary grant, and that the grant was confirmed by the Inam Commissioner on 16th February, 1864, under Title-deed No. 448. An important fact, which has to be stressed at the outset itself, is that this was a grant of an entire village, and not merely of any portion or part of a village. Under those circumstances, whether the original grant was of both the warams or otherwise, there is no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the village itself is an estate within the meaning of Section 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act (I of 1908). That point being not in controversy, we m...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thangaswami
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1963Mad476; 1963CriLJ651
Anantanarayanan, J. 1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, in S. No. 79 of 1959 upon his file. The accused, Thangam alias Thangaswami Thevar, has been convicted of murder under Section 302, I. P. C. and robbery under Section 392, I. P. C. and sentenced to death upon the first charge, and to rigorous imprisonment for ten years upon the second, the sentence of imprisonment to merge with the sentence of death. Since the case rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and the facts involve the application of a legal principle, which is of some interest and significance, we shall first set out the facts in detail.2. Briefly, the offence relates to the murder of an old woman named Nacharammal, and there can be no doubt that this woman was murdered at a lonely spot for the sake of her jewels, and that the jewels she habitually wore were missing from her person when the body was discovered. Nacharammal (deceased) belonged to Keelaka- vanur village and was aged ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chattanatha Karayalar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagarcoil and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad320; [1960]38ITR325(Mad)
Ramachandra Iyer, J.(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the assessment of the petitioner to income-tax for the year of account, 1946-47 (M. E. 1122) under the provisions of S. 47 of the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121, quashing the same, and for allied reliefs. The petition was originally filed in the High Court of Travancore-Cochin. Rule nisi was issued by that court. As the assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer, Nagarcoil, which place by virtue of the States Re-organisation Act, became part of the Madras State, the petition was transferred to the file of this court.(2) The petitioner is a resident of Shencottah, Admittedly, during the year of account, he was a karta of a joint Hindu family, which, amongst its other properties, had a business in the manufacture and sale of salt. The family was also entitled to a share in an unregistered firm, styled,. S.M.K.M. Allom. It is claimed that, about f...
Tag this Judgment!R. Ponnuswami Gramani Vs. the Collector of Chingleput District and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)IIMLJ169; [1960]11STC80(Mad)
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. On 15th August, 1950, Ponnuswami Gramani, the petitioner, entered into a partnership with one Kurshidulla Sahib for carrying on a business in hides and skins. The name of the firm was Ponnuswami Gramani and Kurshidulla and Co. and its place of business was in Periamet, Madras. By an instrument dated 29th January, 1952, the partnership was dissolved with effect from 15th January, 1952. Notice of the dissolution was given to the Registrar of Firms, Madras and also by advertisement in a Tamil newspaper. By the terms of the instrument of dissolution, Ponnuswami Gramani relinquished all his interests in the partnership in favour of Kurshidulla Sahib who took over all its assets and liabilities. Kurshidulla continued to do business in the same commodities.2. On 31st March, 1953, that is to say, long after the deed of dissolution had been executed, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Moore Market Division, Madras, assessed the firm of Ponnuswami Gramani and Kurshid...
Tag this Judgment!S. Chattanatha Karayalar Vs. the Income-tax Officer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)1MLJ439
Ramachandra Iyer, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the assessment of the petitioner to income-tax for the year of account 1946 M.E. 1122 under the provisions of Section 47 of the Travancore Income-tax Act, 1121, quashing the same and for allied reliefs. The petition was originally filed in the High Court of Travancore-Cochin. Rule nisi was issued by that Court. As the assessment was made by the Income-tax Officer, Nagercoil, which place by virtue of the State Re-organisation Act, became part of the Madras State, the petition was transferred to the file of this Court.2. The petitioner is a resident of Shencottah. Admittedly, during the year of account, he was a karta of a joint Hindu family, which, amongst its other properties, had a business in the manufacture and sale of salt. The family was also entitled to a share in an unregistered firm, styled S.M.K.M. Allom. It is claimed that,...
Tag this Judgment!R. Renganayaki Ammal Vs. the Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad327; [1960]38ITR20(Mad)
Rajagopalan, J.(1) The question referred under S. 66(2) of the Income-tax Act ran 'Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal exercised its discretion in a judicial manner in refusing to excuse the delay in presenting the appeals.'(2) Before we deal with the question, we are constrained to point out that paragraph 7 in the statement of the case was wholly uncalled for. Whether this court was right or not in directing the reference was not for the Tribunal to discuss; nor was it within the province of the Tribunal to draw the attention of this court to that feature in the case suggesting that the earlier order under S. 66(2) might require reconsideration. We cannot but express our displeasure at the attitude taken by the Tribunal, whose only duty at that stage was to comply with the direction of the court and draw up a statement of the case and refer the question which they had been directed to refer.(3) That the order of the Tribunal, though in form was ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Peirce, Leslie and Co. Ltd., Ko ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1960Mad351
Rajagopalan, J.(1) Of the three questions referred to this court under S. 66(1) of the Act, the first two were answered against the assessee in the order of this court dated 3rd September 1958 (reported in : AIR1960Mad137 ). The answer to the third of the questions was reserved, and by the order dated 3rd September 1958, a further statement of the case was called for from the Tribunal, which has since been submitted.(2) The entire claim of the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal, and even at the earlier stage the assessee did not dispute the fact that the entirety of its claim, though upheld by the Tribunal, could not be sustained. The claim in the proceedings put forward by the assessee before us was a much more limited one, the details of which were set out in the order dated 3rd September 1958. It is the correctness of that claim we have to decide on the basis of the further statement of the case submitted by the Tribunal.(3) The first item which we have to consider is the claim of...
Tag this Judgment!Union Leather Company Vs. State of Madras
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1960]11STC318(Mad)
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. Before the Tribunal the petitioner-assessee denied his liability to be taxed on a turnover of Rs. 11,80,893-7-7. That plea failed. This sum was made up of two items, (1) Rs. 11,65,268-9-9, which represented the turnover in the sales of hides and skins, which belonged to principals not resident within the State of Madras and (2) Rs. 15,624-13-10, which represented the turnover of sales of hides and skins which belonged to resident principals. The assessee acted as the agent for both sets of principals when he sold the tanned hides and skins. We are really concerned at this stage with the liability of the petitioner to be taxed on the first item of the turnover, Rs. 11,65,268-9-9. As we said, the tanned hides and skins, which the assessee sold, belonged to principals, who were not residents within the State of Madras and the assessee was their agent.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee contended that the petitioner was not liable to be taxed on this t...
Tag this Judgment!P. Abdul Khadar Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1960)2MLJ161
Rqjagopalan, J.1. These proceedings are in relation to the assessment year 1944-45. The assessee's ' previous year' ended on 31st March, 1944. The assessee was then a resident of Bangalore, outside what was then British India, which constituted the taxable territories. The assessee carried on several lines of business : (1) automobile spare parts, (2) supply of butter and milk to the military authorities at Bangalore and (3) supply of live animals, beef and mutton under contracts with military authorities not only at Bangalore Cantonment but also in what was then British India. The assessee could be taxed to Indian income-tax only, of course on that portion of the income of his trading activities in the year of account which could be correlated to the then taxable territories. There is no difficulty now about his profits from his business in automobile spare parts or from his business in butter. With reference to military contracts for the supply of milk, live animals, beef and mutton ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax/Excess Profits Tax, Business Profits Tax, M ...
Court: Chennai
Reported in: [1960]38ITR428(Mad)
RAJAGOPALAN, J. - Of the three questions referred to this court under section 66(1) of the Act, the first two were answered against the assessee in the order of this court dated September 3, 1958. The answer to the third of the questions was reserved, and by the order dated September 3, 1958, a further statement of the case was called for from the Tribunal, which has since been submitted.The entire claim of the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal, and even at the earlier stage the assessee did not dispute the fact that the entirety of its claim, though upheld by the Tribunal, could not be sustained. The claim in the proceedings put forward by the assessee before us was a much more limited one, the details of which were set out in the order dated September 3, 1958. It is the correctness of that claim we have to decide on the basis of the further statements of the case submitted by the Tribunal.The first item which we have to consider is the claim of the assessee, that for the first two...
Tag this Judgment!